ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked-

Adult and Community Learning

Eric Ollerenshaw: What plans he has for the future of adult and community learning; and if he will make a statement.

John Hayes: Adult and community learning make a vital contribution to building a big society founded on social mobility, social justice and social cohesion. We will strive to reinvigorate adult and community learning to make it part of the wider learning continuum and to enable providers to respond to the learning needs of their communities.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Has he managed to see research from the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education that demonstrates that 28% of adult learners show an increased involvement in social, community and volunteering activity as a direct result of their learning? Does he agree that that demonstrates the vital role that adult education will have to play in contributing to the big society?

John Hayes: Yes, indeed. As it happens, I have with me the response to the study that he describes. The transformative power of adult learning is well understood by this Government. We know that adult learning changes lives by changing life chances. It gives some of the most disadvantaged people in our community their chance to gain learning. It is frequently progressive to further learning and takes them to the world of work. This Government unequivocally back adult learning.

Keith Vaz: In our multicultural big society, which is being created, what specific help will there be for those who do not have English as a first language to help them acquire these skills?

John Hayes: It is absolutely right-in the spirit in which I have answered the earlier question-that we should consider the particular needs of communities in the way that the right hon. Gentleman makes clear. Language is critical-it is critical in building the social cohesion that I described. The chances for people in settled communities without a grasp of English to acquire that grasp are essential if they are going to learn and work.

David Ruffley: Evidence from the excellent West Suffolk college in my constituency suggests that those who participate in adult learning increase their activity in the third sector. Given the necessary constraint on public spending, would the Minister perhaps give us a clue as to whether he is going to encourage more co-payment of fees?

John Hayes: Any clues offered on that subject would do me no good at all. It would be entirely inappropriate to prejudge the discussions on the comprehensive spending review. May I just say how welcome it is to see my hon. Friend in the Chamber today?

Adult Education

Virendra Sharma: What assessment he has made of the likely effects on development of small businesses of reductions in spending on adult education.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the results of the spending review will not be announced until next week. However, a key consideration has been how we best ensure the skills of our nation are improved. I can also assure him that we have modelled the impact of our proposals on businesses and individuals. Skills are crucial to delivering growth and will play a key role in our agenda.

Virendra Sharma: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that adult education provides essential work skills for some of my most vulnerable constituents and that 40% reductions in spending on adult education will hit those constituents, and consequently small businesses, hardest-when they are both vital in providing economic growth to tackle the deficit?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is right that small businesses form the backbone of our economy, and it is our job to ensure that they get the support they need. An advanced economy needs advanced skills, and backing business and providing growth means investing in skills. As I have said, he would not expect me to prejudge the CSR, but he can be assured that the team on the Front Bench fully appreciates the power and value of skills.

Anne Main: Will the Minister tell me whether his Department has made any progress on the skills needed for small businesses such as those in the curry industry and whether there has been any progress on trying to develop additional learning skills for that industry?

John Hayes: As my hon. Friend knows, because we have discussed the matter-by the way, I pay tribute to her work in that field-just this week I met my counterpart from Bangladesh to discuss the matter.  [ Interruption. ] Sadly, we were not sharing a samosa at the time. I have asked my hon. Friend to make representations to the Department to talk about her work with that industry to deliver the skills that that industry needs.

Tuition Fees

Charles Kennedy: What plans he has for the future level of the cap on tuition fees which may be levied by universities; and if he will make a statement.

Vincent Cable: We welcome Lord Browne's independent report on higher education, which makes recommendations about the structure and level of graduate contributions. We are looking at his proposals carefully and considering a contribution level of £7,000.

Charles Kennedy: My right hon. Friend knows the reasons, which are well documented, why I cannot support the thrust and direction of Government policy on this one. Given the inevitable, and indeed immediate, ramifications of any policy change for the tertiary sector in England on Russell group universities in Scotland, is he willing between now and next May to enter into open-minded discussions with all the political parties in Scotland to see whether a modus vivendi can none the less be achieved to maintain some of the principles for which we have argued long and hard where Scottish tertiary sector education is concerned?

Vincent Cable: That is a constructive suggestion. I am happy to do exactly what my right hon. Friend has said. To reinforce the point, yesterday the principal-the vice-chancellor equivalent-of Glasgow university, where I know that my right hon. Friend is a rector and with which I have an association, said in relation to the growing funding crisis in Scottish universities:
	"I believe we need to adopt a graduate contribution model that is properly designed, progressive and one which requires those who earn more during their lifetime to pay back more to society in order to fund higher education."
	That is exactly what we are doing.

John Denham: On Tuesday, the Social Market Foundation published an analysis of how the Business Secretary's £7,000 a year minimum fee will hit different graduates. It shows that the hardest hit will be graduates who earn £27,000 a year, while students who get help from the bank of mum and dad to pay off early will get a £12,000 discount on the cost of their degree. Is that fair?

Vincent Cable: It would not be fair, if that were the outcome. That particular analysis does not properly consider the true present value of the payments that people will have to make. There has been some excellent research on the operation of different interest rates in order to produce a genuinely fair and progressive outcome, which Government Members want and which I hope that the right hon. Gentleman still wants.

John Denham: When my building society starts asking me to pay my mortgage in net present value, I will do so. Until then, I will talk pounds and pence like everybody else.
	If the Business Secretary allows universities such as Oxford and Cambridge to charge £10,000 or £12,000 a year, does he recognise that the gap between the few and the many will get wider? The Higher Education Minister has said that it is not possible to stop people paying their fees up front. Will that not create the unfair situation in which those born into privilege, such as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pick two at random, can get a huge discount for paying up front, while the bright child from a poor background who makes it to Oxford or Cambridge will pay even more? How is that fair?

Vincent Cable: We are anxious to ensure a fairer solution than the existing graduate contribution system that we inherited. The right hon. Gentleman has used the analogy of mortgage payments, which is interesting. No building society or bank that I am aware of would exempt people from any payments until they were earning £21,000 a year, which is the progressive element that we are trying to introduce. He has rightly referred to the difficulties that would arise if certain Russell group institutions were allowed to charge very large variable contributions. That is why I made no commitment on Tuesday on how we would deal with that problem, on which we need to reflect further. He is right that there is an issue of fairness, which we will address.

Lorely Burt: Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to stop higher education from disintegrating into a free market free-for-all, either by imposing a cap or by requiring a high proportion of additional fees levied by some of the top universities to be paid out in bursaries to poorer students?

Vincent Cable: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right; there has to be choice and there will be some competition between universities, which is welcome. That is very far short of a laissez-faire free market. We do not want that. There has to be protection for low-income students when they graduate. We will build in those protections and will ensure that there is a proper progressive scheme.

Local Enterprise Partnerships

John Woodcock: What steps he plans to take to ensure that businesses in deprived areas receive support through local enterprise partnerships.

Mark Prisk: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his promotion to the Opposition Front Bench as a shadow Transport Minister.
	Local enterprise partnerships will be a vital element in our new framework for economic development. At the same time, we are planning to modernise business support to improve both access to information and the quality of advice. That will be especially important to firms in remote or deprived areas.

John Woodcock: I thank the Minister for that answer and for his kind words. Does he accept that the recovery is currently very fragile? What interim measures will he put in place while the regional growth fund is being established and will he commit to funding the vital marina project in my constituency?

Mark Prisk: The hon. Gentleman has astutely got on to the record his local project and I commend him for that, but he will understand that a week before the comprehensive spending review I am not going to pre-empt such matters. I will say, however, that the combination of making sure that we have genuine economic development partnerships that are rooted in the communities and ensuring that they are a genuine partnership between business and civic leaders will enable local areas such as Barrow and Furness to set their own priorities and not have Whitehall telling them what they should do.

Laura Sandys: Although South Thanet is in one of the richest regions in the south-east, it is the 64th-most deprived district in the country. Does the Minister agree that LEPs must be there to support the most deprived districts even within richer regions?

Mark Prisk: One of the great advantages of moving away from the one-size-fits-all general regional development agencies is that local enterprise partnerships can respond to local needs. I know that my hon. Friend, who fights her corner for her constituents well, will make sure that that happens.

Gordon Marsden: Yesterday, PricewaterhouseCoopers warned of half a million lost private sector jobs with the Government's scrapping of schools, hospitals and road contracts. Meanwhile, Ministers from the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Communities and Local Government continue squabbling about what local enterprise partnerships can do, blocking resources that the private sector says it needs now. Why should businesses believe that the Minister and his colleagues have any plan for local growth or jobs when they are in such a shambles and chaos over LEPs?

Mark Prisk: We have inherited a situation in which the funds have run out, as the Labour party has said. That is why we are focusing on the things that really matter-tackling the public deficit to keep interest rates lower for longer, making sure that small businesses see their corporation tax go down and tackling red tape. The Labour party failed to deal with all that, but we will.

Apprenticeships

Gordon Birtwistle: How many apprenticeship places his Department plans to fund in 2010-11.

Andrew Stephenson: How many apprenticeship places his Department plans to fund in 2010-11.

John Hayes: Just days after taking office we announced-

Mr Speaker: Order. It is always a terrible pain to have to interrupt the mellifluous tones of the Minister, but I think he meant to make it clear that questions five and six are grouped together.

John Hayes: I am always grateful for your benevolence and advice on these matters, Mr Speaker.
	Days after taking office we announced an additional 50,000 apprenticeships over the financial year, taking the total to be delivered this year to well over 300,000 places-a record for the apprenticeship programme. The National Apprenticeship Service has assured me that we are on track to deliver on this commitment.

Gordon Birtwistle: I am particularly pleased to hear of the efforts being made to fund more apprenticeships and I thank the Minister for his involvement in securing this scheme. However, I am concerned that many businesses in my constituency who want to take on more apprentices are struggling with access, support and advice. Has the Minister, or the agency responsible for the scheme, made any advertising plans to broaden participation in this excellent scheme?

John Hayes: Yes; we appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I have asked my officials to look closely at these matters. We appreciate that some of the supply-side barriers to small businesses, in particular, getting involved in apprenticeships need to be lifted. We know that to rebuild the apprenticeship programme after the sorry state it was left in by the previous regime-I do not want to be unnecessarily unkind, but I emphasise the word "unnecessarily"-we will have to do a lot of work to involve more businesses to satisfy our demands and learner wishes.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank the Minister for the answer that he has just given my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle). How will the Minister ensure that apprenticeship schemes are made available to all people, not just young people?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is right that we need to consider closely not just the apprenticeships that are available to people as they leave school or college, but those for people who want to reskill or upskill. Lord Leitch, in a report that the previous Administration commissioned, made it clear that that is vital because of the demographics, the challenges that we face and the competitive pressures from those countries that have invested in apprenticeships. We will certainly take his remarks on board.

Russell Brown: What preliminary discussions has the Department had with private sector employers who are about to provide those many hundreds, if not thousands, of apprenticeships? Does the Department have a target or time scale for delivering them?

John Hayes: I do not want to be repetitive, Mr Speaker, and you would not let be so, but I make it absolutely clear that almost as soon as we entered government we transferred an additional £150 million into the apprenticeship budget to create extra apprenticeships. Yes, of course, I am working with businesses, small and large, to make that dream-that vision-a reality. Indeed, we held a consultation on that over the summer, which I know the hon. Gentleman will have studied closely.

Science and Innovation

Stephen Metcalfe: What steps he is taking to ensure that Britain's science and innovation sector contributes to economic growth.

David Willetts: Science and innovation are critical to our future prosperity and strongly supported by this Government. As part of the spending review, we are continuing to strengthen the way we support science and innovation, and improving the way they contribute to economic growth.

Stephen Metcalfe: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I am sure that we all agree that the Government have a very important role to play in supporting science and innovation, but there are many other organisations and businesses that need to come together to support more scientific research. What steps can his Department take to foster the big society approach to more research and development?

David Willetts: In Britain we are very fortunate to have some very substantial charities that support scientific research, especially medical research, such as the Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research UK. Indeed, only this week I was able to announce a £50 million joint project on tumour profiling to improve cancer treatment between the Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

David Lammy: The Minister will be aware that knowledge transfer partnerships mean that the Russell group universities contribute £2 billion to British exports. Is he surprised, therefore, that Lord Browne dedicated just 300 words in a 30,000-word report to the employer contribution? Will the Minister say more than his colleagues have about the contribution that employers will make to higher education funding?

David Willetts: It is good to see the right hon. Gentleman in the House, and I look back to our exchanges when he was a Minister with responsibilities in this area. Of course, when he was a Minister in the Department, he was one of the people who commissioned Lord Browne's review and agreed its terms of reference. I very much regret that in his first intervention on the review, he has not welcomed the fact that Lord Browne discharged the remit that he was set. It is very important that businesses contribute, alongside individuals and the taxpayer, and we are pursuing that as part of the CSR.

Alun Cairns: Does the Minister accept that the performance of higher education in engaging with the private sector varies considerably? Will he consider making the handing out of research grants conditional on institutions finding private sector partners?

David Willetts: That is a very important point, and we certainly welcome business backing for research, alongside public funding. There is very important evidence that public funding for research can be complemented by business backing. If I recall correctly, one of the best pieces of evidence on the subject is a research paper where one of the authors is now an official in Her Majesty's Treasury, so it is a document that we particularly value.

Gareth Thomas: In mid-September, apparently preparing the way for big cuts in the science and research budget, the Secretary of State managed to insult hundreds of hard-working British scientists by implying on the "Today" programme that
	"something in the order of 45 per cent of...research grants...were going...to research that was not...excellent".
	As the US, France, Germany and China are increasing their investment in science and research to drive economic growth, is not this just one more reason why those who thought we had the Sage of Westminster and Two Brains running the ship are finding that we actually have Arthur Daley and the rest of the cast of "Minder" running the sails?

David Willetts: The countries that the hon. Gentleman cites-incidentally, I welcome him to his new position on the Front Bench-do not have the mess in the public finances that we inherited as a result of the performance of his Government. None of them is borrowing at the high level that we inherited, yet despite that, we remain strongly committed to science and excellent research in our universities.

Small Business Finance

James Morris: What recent representations he has received on access to finance for small businesses.

Jake Berry: What recent representations he has received on access to finance for small businesses.

Jason McCartney: What recent representations he has received on access to finance for small businesses.

Mark Prisk: The Government believe that improving access to finance is vital for small businesses. In response to our formal consultation on access to credit, we received more than 170 representations, and we will respond to them shortly. In addition, yesterday the British Bankers Association published its taskforce report on business lending, which has 17 separate recommendations. The Government welcome the progress made by the taskforce to date.

James Morris: I thank the Minister for his answer. Many small businesses in my constituency and in the broader black country are still complaining about their inability to get capital to grow their businesses. Does he agree that this is now becoming a vital issue? Will he outline the steps that the Government are going to take to ensure that we get that capital into those businesses, which are absolutely vital to the future of the region and the areas that I represent in generating private sector jobs growth?

Mark Prisk: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why, right away, within a month, we extended the enterprise finance guarantee by £200 million to help up to 2,000 more businesses. More than that, we have been actively pressing the banks to sort out the lending code, to deal with information so that it is more transparent, and to ensure that businesses have the opportunity to appeal. Yesterday, the taskforce reported back, and we will study its proposals. Let me make it clear, however, that as far as this Government are concerned, the real test now will be for the banks' words to be matched by their actions.

Jake Berry: Small businesses in my constituency, which includes some of this country's leading manufacturers, are reliant on credit insurance. What steps are being taken to ensure that such insurance remains available to them?

Mark Prisk: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue, which he has discussed with me in the past. This is a particularly acute problem for those in the construction sector. We have sought assurances from the principal insurers in this area that they have now put in place for the coming year a sufficient risk capability, and they have given us those assurances. As with the banks, we will be closely scrutinising this to ensure that what they have said they have done is implemented in the coming months.

Jason McCartney: I echo my hon. Friends in pointing out that one of the biggest issues that I am facing in my constituency is the lack of lending to small and medium-sized businesses. In addition, Lloyds TSB has announced in the past month that it is closing the only branch in a market town called Meltham. In stressing to the banks that they need to get lending, will the Minister also stress that they need to start serving our communities?

Mark Prisk: This is something that we have raised with the banks. On Monday, however, I want to go further-that is when we will convene our new small business economic forum with the express intention of bringing Government, businesses and the banks together so that we can deal with these issues and start to ensure that credit is available for all businesses, large and small.

Adrian Bailey: The Secretary of State has rightly commented on the obligations of state-supported banks to do more to help our small businesses in the interests of the national economy. Will the Minister tell us whether the new growth fund set up by the banking taskforce and announced yesterday will have on its board a Government representative in order to influence policy decisions?

Mark Prisk: We met the banks yesterday and are perfectly willing to engage with them on how that could happen. We may well wish to ensure that the Government have a stake in that role, but as we received the recommendations just yesterday, I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that he chairs will understand that we want to examine them more closely. The new growth fund is a positive step which will deal with the gap that Rowlands identified in the case of mid-cap businesses. It is a welcome step, and the Government want to work with the banks to make it work effectively.

Andrew Gwynne: But does the Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, who said on 27 April on Radio 5 Live about state-owned banks not lending enough to small businesses:
	"What we're saying is that the directors of those banks should be held responsible and if they fail to honour those lending targets they should be sacked"?

Mark Prisk: I have learned to make a habit of always agreeing with the Deputy Prime Minister.

Gordon Banks: I do not believe that the Minister is really focusing his attention on the question. By his own Department's definition, small enterprises are those with zero to 49 employees, and they have an average turnover of less than £3 million. How will the new business growth fund proposed yesterday by the British Bankers Association help those businesses, given that businesses will have to have a turnover of between £10 million and £100 million to apply and the average turnover of a small business is £3 million?

Mark Prisk: May I first welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position? Unfortunately, however, his first question confuses two matters. The growth fund is about investing equity into mid-cap businesses, as I described to the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). Micro-businesses, which are very important, are an entirely different animal. That is where bank lending is crucial, and that is what we are dealing with. We are particularly keen to ensure that there is a proper lending arrangement for micro-businesses, and we are talking to the banks about how we can get one, but Members should not confuse capital investment and bank lending. They are two different things.

Grocery Supply Code of Practice

Andrew George: When he intends to introduce an ombudsman to enforce the grocery supply code of practice.

Edward Davey: May I begin by recognising how long and hard my hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue, and indeed how successful he has been? He will know that the coalition statement commits the Government to introducing what we are now calling a groceries code adjudicator, and in our response to the consultation on 3 August, we set out how we would take that forward. I am pleased to be able to tell him that we now have approval to introduce a draft Bill this Session, and that the aim is to publish it for pre-legislative scrutiny before the end of the year.

Andrew George: I am very grateful to the Minister. The long-awaited code is now in place, but without an adjudicator it is like having rules for rugby without a referee. As the initiative has cross-party support and we have an extended Session, is it not possible to implement it this Session?

Edward Davey: I very much hope that my hon. Friend will engage in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill as actively as he did in campaigning for the code. Because we have not even published the draft Bill yet, it is a little early to say when the actual Bill will be introduced or whether that will be this Session or next, but I will keep him and the House informed.

Non-Departmental Public Bodies

Jesse Norman: What progress he has made in reducing the number of non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies sponsored by his Department, with particular reference to bodies responsible for further and higher education.

Vincent Cable: We are taking radical steps to reform the network of bodies sponsored by my Department. We announced this morning that we would abolish 17 partner organisations, merge eight, reconstitute two as charities and give further consideration to the future of nine more.

Jesse Norman: I thank the Secretary of State for that excellent response. Hereford college of technology is an outstanding institution, and I would welcome his visiting it if he should choose to do so at some time. Like many colleges, it labours under regulation by five separate bodies covering both further and higher education. Is there further scope to streamline the regulation of bodies covering such combined institutions?

Vincent Cable: Yes, there is further scope to simplify the landscape of further education quangos, and we intend to pursue that. There are far too many organisations, making it impossible for further education colleges to do their job, and we will remove some and simplify the whole system greatly.

Christopher Leslie: Has the Secretary of State also done a U-turn on his views of Sir Philip Green, who gave advice about non-departmental public bodies? Once upon a time he said, talking about Sir Philip Green, that he had
	"no time for billionaire tax dodgers who step off the plane from their tax havens...and have the effrontery to tell us how to...run our tax policies".
	Has he changed his mind on that as well?

Mr Speaker: Order. We do not need a character assessment of Sir Philip Green, what we require is comments on the subject matter of the question. The Secretary of State is welcome to volunteer them, otherwise we will move on.

Vincent Cable: I am certainly happy to answer. I have not changed my views-I think Sir Philip Green should pay his taxes in the UK.

Green Investment Bank

Simon Hughes: What recent progress he has made on the creation of a green investment bank.

Vincent Cable: We remain committed to creating a green investment bank that will support the growth, industrial transformation and greening of the UK economy. Over the summer, we made good progress on the role and form of the bank and its relationship with other Government policies. I will make a statement on the bank shortly after the spending review.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. May I encourage him, in the remaining days before the final settlement of Government spending is reached, to ensure that a green investment bank has sufficient funds to make it a real agent for change towards a sustainable economy as well as the ability to lever in the maximum additional investment, and to follow the best models in other countries and among those proposed to the Government? This is a real test of the Government's green credentials, and I hope he fights that case to the wire.

Vincent Cable: I accept that the test my hon. Friend sets is a good test of the Government's green credentials. The bank must be ambitious and it must lever in substantial amounts of private capital. We must not be excessively constrained and must open up the possibility of subsequent expansion. I am sure we will give him a satisfactory answer.

Barry Sheerman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if a green investment bank is to be successful, it must embrace all the science and technology available in our country? Much of that is seated in our great universities-we have over 120-but has he not already sold the pass? There will be substantial cuts in university budgets, which will affect towns, cities and innovation in this country.

Mr Speaker: Order. Can we focus on the green investment bank?

Vincent Cable: You are right, Mr Speaker, that we have strayed a little.
	The hon. Gentleman chaired the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families for many years, so I am sure he knows that in my statement on Tuesday, I spoke about the implication of the teaching grant for student-graduate contributions. The implications for research remain to be seen till next week.

George Freeman: Does the Secretary of State agree that the green investment bank is a key part of the important task of shifting our low-carbon policy from one that is based on restriction, targets and negative regulation to one based on enterprise, innovation, science and community? Crucially, does he also agree that the bank must be able to issue bonds? Will he make representations to the Treasury to ensure that its ability to do so is established in the legislation?

Vincent Cable: At this stage, we are not specifying the precise financial techniques that will be employed, but clearly, we will retain options and look at the variety of possibilities in future. Moreover, I would stress that the green investment bank is one of several policies that is driving the low-carbon economy, which also include reform of the electricity tariff system, the green deal and those that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is pursuing.

Royal Mail (Yorkshire and North East)

Hugh Bayley: What consultation Royal Mail plans to undertake with businesses and the public on proposals to close sorting offices in Yorkshire and the North East.

Edward Davey: Decisions regarding the rationalisation of Royal Mail's mail centres are operational matters, which are the responsibility of the company's senior management team. The Government are not directly involved in those decisions. The rationalisation process was centred on an agreement between the Communication Workers Union and Royal Mail. I understand that Royal Mail is not obliged to consult publicly on its internal review of proposals for restructuring its mail centres. However, it commits to keep all interested external stakeholders informed, and I believe that it has been in contact with the hon. Gentleman.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman and the Government should be concerned about how the Post Office and Royal Mail serve their customers. Two years ago, when Royal Mail shifted the sorting of second-class mail from York to Leeds, it gave me a firm undertaking that it would consult the public if ever it considered shifting the sorting of first-class mail as well, and closing the York sorting office. That is what the company now proposes, but it has not consulted. Will the Minister ensure that the company consults businesses that will be affected and the general public in my constituency, or does the Government's enthusiasm for privatising Royal Mail put them in a position in which they are no longer concerned about the customer?

Edward Davey: I am sure that Royal Mail will again be in contact with the hon. Gentleman on those points, but he must tell his constituents that the experience of rationalising mail sorting centres has led not only to efficiency improvements that reduce the costs of sorting and delivering mail, but to an improvement in customer service to his constituents. If he wants quality and delivery to improve for his constituents, he should support that rationalisation.

Julian Smith: May I urge the Minister to consult carefully with the remote businesses and communities of the Yorkshire dales which rely hugely on the Royal Mail to survive and conduct their business?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right that the Royal Mail needs to consider the interests of small and medium enterprises. Indeed, it is part of our approach in the Postal Services Bill to ensure that our new policy framework will do that. I hope that he will be reassured that experience of rationalising mail sorting centres has led to significant improvements to customer service.

Nia Griffith: Can the Minister explain what guarantees he will give that a privatised Royal Mail service will continue to do business through the Post Office rather than looking for other outlets and perhaps leaving rural post offices in Yorkshire and elsewhere with very little hope of survival?

Edward Davey: May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her new role? I look forward to many weeks in Committee considering the Bill. She will know that there is an agreement between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd, called the inter-business agreement, and it is that agreement-not a Government guarantee-that decides that relationship. We expect and believe that that inter-business agreement will continue.

Business Regulation

Philip Hollobone: If he will take steps to ensure that his Department's one-in, one-out plan for business regulation will include new business regulations originating at EU level.

Edward Davey: This Government are determined to reverse the rise in regulation that is constricting enterprise and stifling growth. We have introduced the one-in, one-out system of regulatory control for domestic regulation, to bring about a fundamental change in the way that regulations are drawn up, introduced and implemented.
	We will also take a rigorous approach to tackling EU regulations. The Government will engage earlier in the Brussels policy process; take strong cross-government negotiating lines; and work to end the so-called "gold-plating" of EU regulations, so that when European rules are implemented into UK law, it is done without putting British businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

Philip Hollobone: May I urge the Minister to include EU regulations in the one-in, one-out system, as I understand that compliance with EU regulations costs this country some 3% of its annual gross domestic product?

Edward Davey: May I reassure my hon. Friend that once the system is embedded with respect to domestic regulation affecting businesses and the third sector, the Government plan to extend it to other areas, including EU law?

Michael Connarty: I note that the Minister did not address the question asked by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). Is he not willing to tell Parliament the truth that in fact business regulations are part of the common market, which means that they cannot be vetoed by the Government? What is required is for the Government to stop the gold-plating that is done by the civil service when regulations come from Europe.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to either my first answer or my second answer. The Government are committed to ending gold-plating and I have said from this Dispatch Box that, once the one-in, one-out system is embedded, we will apply it to EU legislation.

Company Reporting (Operating and Financial Review)

Roger Williams: What progress has been made towards reinstating an operating and financial review to ensure that directors' social and environmental duties have to be covered in company reporting; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Davey: The Department is currently consulting on the future of narrative reporting which addresses the coalition commitment to reinstate an operating and financial review. The consultation closes on 19 October and we will then consider the responses and take a view on how to take this commitment forward by the end of the year.

Roger Williams: I thank the Minister for that reply and his active interest in this matter. I believe that this coalition Government will be the greenest Government ever, but we need to promote sustainable investment. The OFR will have a key role to play in that, especially in ensuring that the same standards apply for independent verification and financial reporting. Can the Minister assure me that the Government will support that?

Edward Davey: This Government will be the greenest Government ever, and when he reads the consultation document he will see that we have some very interesting ideas about how to improve the way in which companies report on social and environmental matters. I hope that we will be able to drive up the quality of reporting and disclosures by companies in that area.

Graduate Employability

Nigel Mills: What steps he is taking to encourage universities to focus on the employability of graduates.

David Willetts: Students rightly expect better information about their chances of a job after studying different courses at different universities, and universities need to do more to improve the employability of their graduates. That is why I have asked universities to publish statements on what they do for students' employment prospects. The vast majority have now done so.

Nigel Mills: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that a key method of achieving increased employability are schemes such as those set up by David Nieper, a full service clothing manufacturer in Alfreton in my constituency? It has agreed a scheme with Nottingham Trent university that will ensure that students get a full range of experience and skills in the textiles sector to increase their chances of employment after they finish their course.

David Willetts: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, one of the proposals in Lord Browne's report that we are looking at very carefully is to do more to encourage the accreditation of skills developed in businesses and the workplace as part of a degree qualification.

Small Business Finance

Chris Evans: What recent representations he has received on access to finance for small businesses.

John Baron: What recent representations he has received on access to finance for small businesses.

Mark Prisk: I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer I gave to a similar question earlier.

Chris Evans: Atega Business Solutions, a new business start-up based in my constituency, tells me that part funding is available to it, but that in most cases it has to spend 100% of the cost before it is eligible to claim back 50%, which deters it from applying. What advice would the Minister give to Atega to secure funding when money is tight?

Mark Prisk: It is important that businesses not only press their own bank, but shop around, because there tends to be an anxiety that, having been turned down by one bank, they will not be successful elsewhere-I remember that when I started my own business in the last recession. It is also important, if the hon. Gentleman can, to press that case on his constituents' behalf with the British Bankers Association. If he does so, would he copy me in? If his constituents continue to have problems, I would like to ensure that the banks understand that we take an interest in the plight and prospects of our small businesses.

John Baron: The measures introduced by the coalition Government to help small businesses have been a vast improvement on what went before under the previous Government. However, in the specific cases bought to the Department's attention by Members of Parliament in which commercially viable small and medium-sized enterprises are still being denied access to capital, can I have the Minister's assurance that the Department will do everything it can to help?

Mark Prisk: We can and we will, and I will be happy to support any Member who wants to press that case. This is a very important issue, and it should be cross party. We can make a difference.

Topical Questions

Daniel Poulter: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Vincent Cable: My Department's responsibilities include helping to drive growth and rebalance the economy, which we can do by building on the strength of manufacturing, other knowledge industries and the science and research base, by helping businesses to grow by getting rid of excessive regulation and helping them access credit, by being open to trade and foreign investment, by encouraging the development of a skilled work force and by spreading opportunities and life chances to as many people as possible.

Daniel Poulter: Working in agriculture is still an important life choice for many people in rural areas, and I am sure that, like me, the Minister would like to see a profitable and vibrant agricultural sector. However, will he please outline what steps he will take to support vocational and apprenticeship schemes in the agricultural sector?

John Hayes: Like my hon. Friend, I care about growers and farmers, because of the constituency I represent and because I know the difference that they make to our nation. Mindful of the concerns he expressed, and of others like them, I have already asked officials to work with the sector skills council in this area to see what further apprenticeship programmes can be developed in agriculture and related subjects.

Alison Seabeck: What action is the Minister taking, alongside his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, to prevent the regional economy of the south-west from entering a slump because of the parochial disagreements in the region? Or are DCLG and businesses unable to agree, in the same way that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats seem unable to agree in the south-west?

Mark Prisk: I will ignore the flim-flam at the end. What matters to the hon. Lady is ensuring an effective partnership in her area. There is squabbling in Somerset and Devon, which the people concerned have to sort out. If they do not, they will fall behind. That is the message for them, and I hope she will support me on that.

John Glen: Odstock Medical Ltd in my constituency was the first commercial entity to be set up under the NHS. It does vital work developing medical devices alleviating the condition of people with multiple sclerosis. Unfortunately, it is unable to access the SME support from the Department. Given that its major shareholder is the local hospital, will the Minister meet with me to discuss how it can be reclassified as an SME so that it can access that support and grow its business, which does vital work?

Mark Prisk: This is a peculiar glitch in the way the law works, and I would be pleased to meet my hon. Friend and the business in his constituency to see whether we can wrinkle it out.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Can the Minister explain what he will do to ensure that our universities stay at the leading edge of research and innovation? That is especially important as, for many universities, the Browne proposals will mean only replacement income, not growth and investment money, despite the quite disgraceful hike in tuition fees proposed.

David Willetts: The package proposed by Lord Browne as a whole is intended to put our universities on a stable and secure long-term funding basis that will enable us to support and encourage their work in research, and we are considering carefully the new proposals from Sir James Dyson for technology innovation centres.

Philip Davies: Further to the excellent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), given the volume of regulation that comes from the EU, does the Minister accept that unless the one-in, one-out policy applies to EU regulation as well, it will have only a limited impact? I understand that the Minister said that the policy would apply to EU legislation in due course, but can he give us a time scale for that?

Mark Prisk: There are two steps to this. One is to ensure that the practice that we follow deals with the gold-plating, which has quite rightly been raised by Members on both sides of the House. That is our first step, but as my hon. Friend has pointed out-and as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) pointed out in his answer earlier-we are ensuring that we deal with domestic legislation first. We will then ensure that we look to include EU legislation.  [ Interruption. ] I love this coming from the Opposition, who allowed 14 new working regulations every working day. We are tackling regulation; they funked it.

John Mann: If the Business Secretary had been able to accept my invitation to open the world's most advanced plastics recycling factory in my constituency two weeks ago, he would have learnt that the decision to invest in this country was based on a £1 million grant from the regional development agency. How much will be available through such grants to attract other overseas businesses to invest in my constituency in the next three years?

Vincent Cable: I am sorry that I did not have the opportunity to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I will try to make up for that in future. We want to attract inward investment, but it was not at all clear that the best way of doing so was through the RDAs, which were duplicating each other's work. In key overseas countries, for example, there have often been several RDAs competing with each other, using public money in a completely unstructured and unhelpful way. We are going to resolve that.

Andrew Stephenson: In my constituency of Pendle, many graduates earn far less on average than those working in other parts of the country. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the Browne review's proposals to raise the threshold for fees repayment from £15,000 to £21,000?

David Willetts: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important feature of the Browne review, which is also one reason why the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggested that the poorest 30% of students would be better off as a result of those proposals.

Valerie Vaz: Can the Minister state whether he has received the petition from the Science is Vital group, which lobbied Parliament last Saturday, and also say whether he has listened to the group, and if not, why not?

David Willetts: I believe that the Science is Vital group is also presenting a petition today. I hope to meet the members of that campaign to discuss their commitment to science and to emphasise that this Government are committed to excellent science research.

Mark Spencer: The Minister will be aware of the thousands of companies that in the past have supplied Departments, an example of which is F. J. Bamkin in my constituency, which used to supply socks to the Ministry of Defence. Can he say what progress his Department has made in achieving the manifesto commitment to deliver
	"25 per cent of government research and procurement contracts through SMEs"?

Mark Prisk: The key to changing the system is to ensure that we open up the contracts. That is why we have already started to publish those contracts online, so that every business, large or small, can see what is on offer. Then we need to remove the barriers that exist, which is why we are tackling things such as the repeated pre-qualifications that are necessary for the same work in neighbouring areas. Removing those barriers, opening up the contracts-that is how we are going to hit the targets.

Lilian Greenwood: Yesterday I spoke to Dr Paul Greatrix, registrar of the university of Nottingham. He described the Government's immigration cap as wrong-headed and perverse, because it will hamper the free trade in ideas and prevent our world-class international university from recruiting the brightest and best minds to join its highly skilled research team. What will the Minister do to ensure that our university's excellent reputation is maintained?

Vincent Cable: We very much believe in the free trade of ideas, and we want Britain to be open. We are looking at the moment at how we can reconcile this with the coalition's policy to maintain a cap on non-EU migration.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Cumbria university, which has one of its largest campuses in the Lancaster part of my constituency, has experienced a number of financial and managerial problems over the past few years. Can the Minister comment on the university's viability, given its new business plan?

David Willetts: I know that my hon. Friend has been closely involved with that university, as have other hon. Members. The Higher Education Funding Council for England advises me that, with the university's new management arrangements and its new plan, it will have a far better prospect for the future.

Mark Tami: On Tuesday, Tata Steel announced its intention to close its Living Solutions business in Shotton, with the loss of some 180 jobs. This is a hammer blow to all those employees and their families, as well as to the local economy. Will the Secretary of State join me in pressing the company to reconsider its decision, and also look at the future of the whole modular construction business?

Vincent Cable: I am always happy to meet Opposition Members who have local difficulties with local companies; I have already done so and I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about this. I do not know the details of the case, and I have to say at the outset that we are not in a position to make available large amounts of public money, but if we can help in other ways, we will.

Jason McCartney: Will the Secretary of State confirm his commitment to ensuring that the nation has the right kind of skills for a sustainable economic recovery by supporting ambitious young people and adults such as those studying at Kirklees college to improve their education and skills in further education?

John Hayes: Yes, I do indeed recognise the excellent work of our colleges. That is why we want to give them more freedom, more discretion and more power to respond to the needs of learners and local businesses. We have begun to do that during our time in government, and I should like to draw the House's attention to today's written statement, which goes further along those lines.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Secretary of State remember the Lib Dem halcyon days when he sat here on the Opposition side of the House opposing university top-up fees and walked through the same Lobby as me? He was also against the privatisation of Royal Mail, but we now know the price of a Liberal pledge: a seat on the Government Front Bench and a ministerial salary. What a price to pay.

Vincent Cable: I have always enjoyed- [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear the Secretary of State's reply.

Vincent Cable: I have always enjoyed joining the hon. Gentleman in the Division Lobby, and I have done so on many occasions. I have also enjoyed his humour. If he had followed my writings as closely as he claims to have done, he would have realised that I was advocating the introduction of private capital into Royal Mail about six years ago.

John Leech: Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that the poorest 30% of graduates would pay less than they do now if the Browne review were to be implemented. However, potential students do not automatically assume that they are going to be among the bottom 30%, so any increase in tuition fees would surely be a disincentive for them to apply to go to university, even if they would ultimately be better off.

David Willetts: We can see from the evidence that the introduction of fees by the previous Labour Government did not have the effect that many people in all parts of the House feared. In reality, we have seen an increase in the number of applications from students from poorer backgrounds, because they knew that they would not have to pay up-front fees. That key feature of the system would be maintained under Lord Browne's proposals.

Anne Begg: A lot of the businesses in my constituency are involved in the offshore oil and gas sector, which is a global business that depends on the movement of labour so that it can move its work force around the world. That business is seriously concerned about the cap on immigration, and I hope that the Secretary of State is having very detailed discussions with the Home Office to ensure that that business remains in the North sea and does not go elsewhere in the world.

Vincent Cable: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I have had many such representations, not only from that industry but from others. I have had discussions with the Home Secretary about this, and we are determined to keep Britain open for business and attracting the kind of companies that she has in her constituency.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Business Secretary set out the timetable for the setting up of the local economic partnerships. Will he explain which umbrella body should be used to apply for European funding such as the rural development programme? Will he also guide us on what the position will be on match funding going forward?

Mr Speaker: One answer to those three questions will suffice.

Mark Prisk: You are very kind, Mr Speaker. There will be a sub-regional White Paper in due course.

Ian Austin: The deep-seated structural challenges facing the west midlands economy mean that our region has been hit harder by the downturn than anywhere else in the country, and the recovery will take longer, too. Is the Secretary of State prepared to meet a cross-party delegation of Members of Parliament from the west midlands and business leaders from the region so that we can discuss plans to bring new industries and new jobs to the region?

Vincent Cable: I am happy to do that. In recent times, I have met Opposition Members from the west midlands who were concerned about the car industry and others who were concerned about ceramics. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

Duncan Hames: My right hon. Friend has asserted the Government's determination that graduate contributions should be linked to ability to pay. Will he therefore consider supplementing the Browne proposals with a less advantageous interest rate for the highest earners?

David Willetts: We are, of course, considering Lord Browne's proposals very carefully and in greater detail. One issue that we will certainly consider is the exact interest rate that should be applied.

Anas Sarwar: What an incredible transformation the Business Secretary has made from a Labour councillor in Glasgow to a Tory front-man in Westminster, with every principle dropped at the first sniff of power. Will he please detail what consultation process took place with the National Union of Students before reaching his own conclusions on the Browne report?

Vincent Cable: I fondly remember my days on the Glasgow city council, where we achieved much. I have met representatives from the National Union of Students on several occasions. We have consulted them and continue to do so. The NUS has some useful ideas, which will hopefully supplement our response to the Browne report. We shall continue to maintain a dialogue.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. All good things come to an end, and there is heavy pressure on time today.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an extremely experienced Member. He has now ratcheted up something in the region of 31 years in the House, so he knows that points of order come after statements.

Barry Sheerman: This is about the statement. There is no list with it. We were promised a list. We-

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very dextrous parliamentarian. He will try to catch my eye during business questions and he will be able to wrap his various points into a beautifully textured question if he gets the opportunity.

Business of the House

Hilary Benn: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

George Young: The business for the week commencing 18 October will be as follows:
	Monday 18 October-Proceedings on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Day 2).
	Tuesday 19 October-My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister plans to make a statement on the strategic defence and security review, followed by Proceedings on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Day 3).
	Wednesday 20 October-My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer plans to make a statement on the comprehensive spending review, followed by Proceedings on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Day 4).
	Thursday 21 October-Second Reading of the Local Government Bill [Lords].
	Friday 22 October-Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 25 October will include:
	Monday 25 October-Proceedings on the Parliamentary Voting System and -Constituencies Bill (Day 5).
	Tuesday 26 October-Second Reading of the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill.
	Wednesday 27 October-Second Reading of the Postal Services Bill, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to economic policy co-ordination.
	Thursday 28 October-General debate on the comprehensive spending review.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 28 October will be:
	Thursday 28 October-A debate on the internet and privacy.

Hilary Benn: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. May I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton). The House will be pleased to know that she has moved one seat along on our Front Bench, as a reward.
	Mr Speaker, you have been clear and consistent with Ministers in saying that they must make major policy announcements to this House. On 9 September, the Leader of the House assured us that the Government would adhere to the ministerial code in this respect. Over the weekend, however, the findings of Lord Browne's report on tuition fees were extensively leaked to the media, and this morning we heard the Minister for the Cabinet Office talking to the "Today" programme about the future of public bodies before talking to us. It seems that Mr Holmes and Dr Watson, as I understand the Leader of the House and his deputy were christened by my predecessor, have made no progress at all in dealing with this serial problem.
	Following Tuesday's statement, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Browne report, so that Liberal Democrat Members in particular-who, before the election, knowing about the deficit, signed solemn pledges to vote against lifting the cap on fees-can tell us whether they now intend to follow the Deputy Prime Minister and the Business Secretary in ripping up their pledges? I think that their constituents deserve an answer.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman also find time for a debate on the decision to take child benefit away from so many middle-income families while leaving it in place for households earning nearly twice as much? It is unfair, it is unjust, and no credible explanation has been offered. We certainly heard none from the Prime Minister yesterday. Given the Prime Minister's inability to answer the Leader of the Opposition's perfectly straightforward question about the number of families who would be affected, will the Leader of the House ask him to do his homework, and place the information in the Library so that we can obtain the full facts and then have a debate? I am sure that that would be welcomed by the many members of the Cabinet who clearly had no idea that the decision had been made, because the Chancellor decided to tell the media before he told them. Should not the House show some compassion to those unfortunate individuals by giving them the chance denied by the occupant of No. 11 to tell us what they think about this terrible policy?
	Earlier this year the Prime Minister said that the comprehensive spending review
	"will affect our economy, our society-indeed our whole way of life...for years, perhaps decades, to come."
	In the light of that, a single day's debate is wholly inadequate. Given the scale and extent of the cuts, the House must have the time that it needs to discuss the implications for the people whom we all represent. Will the Leader of the House provide that opportunity, and will he confirm that the House will have a chance to vote on the comprehensive spending review?
	While the Leader of the House is thinking about his answer to that question, will he explain why he has not yet made time available for an Opposition day debate? Is it because he fears the holding of such a debate while all these bad decisions are being made? Can he also tell us why the Defence Secretary will not be making next week's statement on the strategic defence review? Is it because the Government are afraid of allowing that as well, given the Defence Secretary's well-publicised views?
	Can the Leader of the House clear up the confusion about a statement on cold weather payments? On Monday the legislation was laid without the clause on higher-rate payments of £25 a week, and yesterday the Prime Minister refused to guarantee their future, saying that an announcement would be made next week. Today's Guardian quotes Government sources saying a whole load of contradictory things. When will this shambles come to an end, so that the people who rely on those payments can have the peace of mind that they deserve?
	Finally, can the Leader of the House tell us what chance the House will have to discuss the work of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in time to inform the current review, given the bureaucratic burden that it continues to place on all Members, and the cost of its operations to the taxpayer? Does he not agree that Members' time should really be spent holding the Government to account, rather than doing accounts?

George Young: First, let me join the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) in paying tribute to the former shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton). She brought a ray of sunshine into the Chamber at 11.30 every Thursday, which will now illuminate the dark recesses of the Whips Office. We wish her luck in her new disciplinary role of enforcing Opposition policies, the moment they have some.
	I welcome the new shadow Leader to his post. He has inherited from his father a deep affection for, and commitment to, the House of Commons, which will stand him in good stead in the job that he now does. We learnt from the excellent diaries of Chris Mullin that the right hon. Gentleman was once eyed as a contender to succeed Tony Blair as Prime Minister in 2005. The House will be disappointed that he did not throw his hat into the ring. There was a time when there was always a Benn on the ballot paper. I look forward to working with the right hon. Gentleman and his new deputy, the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), in our efforts to strengthen the House.
	Let me now deal with the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. The Government are making four statements this week, including the one that is to follow the business statement. We have averaged 2.8 statements per week: we have been very forthcoming in making statements to the House.
	The Browne report was Lord Browne's report; it was not the Government's report. The moment it was available, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary came to the House and made a statement. I am sure the House will want to debate the report, and in addition to my Liberal Democrat friends clarifying their view, I hope that the Labour Opposition will explain exactly where they stand on student finance, because there is open warfare between the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Home Secretary.
	Our proposed child benefit changes are scheduled to be introduced in 2013, and there will be an opportunity to debate them. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one injustice between two high-income households, but there is another injustice that he did not address: that between households on much lower incomes who are paying standard rate tax, and through that tax are subsidising the child benefit of higher rate payers. I thought the Labour party stood for the many, not the few.
	I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the comprehensive spending review is an important issue, which is why the Government have found time for a debate, notwithstanding the Wright report recommendations, which implied that debates on spending reviews should be secured by the Backbench Business Committee. I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about making time available for a second day of debate, and the Chairman of the Committee has no doubt also noted that bid.
	The Opposition will get their full quota of Opposition days, and in view of the extended length of the current Session we would be happy to enter into a dialogue on how we might increase the quota to reflect that additional sitting time.
	On cold weather payments, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, the statement about the rate will be made after the CSR. We are committed to making cold weather payments to those on low incomes when the weather demands it.
	I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that it is the Prime Minister who is to make the statement on the strategic defence review, instead of complaining about it. Could there be a subject of higher priority on which the Prime Minister might come and address the House?
	On the question about IPSA, I am not sure that the Government would want to find time for that debate, but it is perfectly open to the Backbench Business Committee, which has a quota of approximately one day per week, to find time for such a debate if the issue is thought to be a priority.

Several hon. Members: rose-

Mr Speaker: Order. A large number of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. As colleagues will be aware, ordinarily I seek to ensure that all Members who wish to do so can participate, but I give notice that that is extremely unlikely today in view of the pressure on parliamentary time and the very important Back-Bench business that is to follow. I therefore merely reiterate my usual exhortation to Members to stick to single, short supplementary questions, and to the Leader of the House to demonstrate his typical pithiness in reply.

Greg Knight: Why do we still have to go through the ridiculous ritual of putting our clocks back every autumn, thereby plunging the nation into darkness by mid-afternoon? Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the Government will not seek to talk out the private Member's Bill on this subject that is due to come before the House shortly? If he does as I ask, I suspect the only opponents will be a handful of Scots. If that is the case, should they not be told, "You've got your own Parliament. If you don't like it, go away and give yourselves your own time zone"?

George Young: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that, and I note the suggestion of independence in respect of the time zone. If he looks at the record, he will find that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) introduced a private Member's Bill in, I think, the last Parliament, and if he looks at the  Hansard account of its Second Reading debate he will find a speech that I made setting out my views. Notwithstanding that, when the current Bill's turn comes to be debated, my ministerial colleague who will be responding for the Government will make the Government's position clear, and I will pass on my right hon. Friend's strong views.

Siobhain McDonagh: At the Commonwealth games closing ceremony in a few hours' time, Prince Edward will be sitting alongside the head of a regime accused of war crimes: President Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on whether the Commonwealth should be giving succour in that way to countries with such appalling human rights records, and on whether allowing a member of Britain's royal family to sit next to Sri Lanka's leader represents a change in Britain's foreign policy to one that puts trade considerations ahead of human rights?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, and I understand the strength of feeling. I will draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and ask him to write to her with a response to the points that she has just raised.

Jo Swinson: The Leader of the House has given us the business until Thursday 28 October. The day after that, Friday 29 October, this House will be used for the second time for the UK Youth Parliament to hold a day of debate. I am sure that many hon. Members will be delighted to see that, as will I, as a trustee of that organisation. I wonder whether this would be an appropriate time for this House to debate the important issue of how we can get more young people better involved in the political process, as that is something that everybody wants.

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the fact that the Youth Parliament will sit in this Chamber on that date, and my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will be representing the Government. If the sitting is anything like last year's, it will be a fantastic success. I agree with her on the importance of engaging young people in the political process. I think it would be worth while to have a debate, and she can either apply for one in Westminster Hall or catch the eye of the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee at one of her Wednesday sittings.

Barry Sheerman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is estimated that there will be 1,000 job losses in every university in this country if we have the predicted cuts in university budgets? Is it not about time we had a serious debate on this essential element of our prosperity in this country?

George Young: The Government will be spending some £90 million on universities and student support this year. The hon. Gentleman will know that this was not a protected area for the outgoing Labour Government; they had pencilled in cuts of some 20% for that budget, and we need to bear that in mind. He will have to await the outcome of the comprehensive spending review to see the resources that we are making available to the universities in the next three years. [Official Report, 2 November 2010, Vol. 517, c. 10MC.]

Rehman Chishti: Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on fire safety linked to building regulations and materials? According to the chief fire officer for Kent, it takes a matter of minutes from ignition to collapse, and the lives of fire officers and members of the public are thereby endangered.

George Young: My hon. Friend raises an important issue about the safety of those in buildings. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and see whether he can respond to the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Thomas Docherty: Will the Leader of the House ask the Ministry of Defence when it plans to come to give a statement on the compensation payments for nuclear test veterans? We have now been waiting five months for this Government to get their proverbial finger out and make a decision.

George Young: I am sorry if there has been any discourtesy in not making information available to the House. I will contact the Secretary of State for Defence today and see whether we can expedite an answer.

Jeremy Lefroy: One of my constituents recently brought to my attention an extraordinary, but perfectly legal, tax avoidance scheme that shocked me as well as him. I am in favour of tax incentives for growth, but this particular scheme does nothing for growth. Given the welcome recent pronouncements on tax avoidance from the Treasury, will the Leader of the House consider having a debate where Members could highlight such schemes so that the Treasury could indeed make a bonfire of them?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The Government are committed to tackling tax avoidance and we welcome any debate on the subject. The best way to deal with such schemes is to bring them to the attention of my ministerial colleagues at the Treasury. The Government are making improvements to a scheme called DOTAS-Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes-with which I am sure my hon. Friend is familiar, so that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs receives better and earlier information about tax avoidance schemes.

Alex Cunningham: I hope that the Leader of the House will be aware of the collapse of Crown Currency Exchange, which has left people across the country, including some of my constituents, hundreds or even thousands of pounds out of pocket. Will he agree to encourage Ministers to investigate the collapse, and in particular the fact that the company continued to accept currency orders when it had already gone bust? Will he also allow time for a debate on such matters?

George Young: In common with many other Members of the House, I too have constituents who have lost money through Crown Currency Exchange. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Financial Services Authority does not regulate retail foreign exchange services, so it did not regulate in any way the business of Crown Currency Exchange. The business model was exceptional and involved taking forward risks. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my colleagues in the Treasury to see whether there is any further legislative action that the Government might take.

Stewart Jackson: The House will know of the wholly wrong-headed proposals made by the Sentencing Guidelines Council for a reduction in sentences for violent crime. Given that today we are examining the abolition of a number of out-of-touch and superfluous quangos, may I add the Sentencing Guidelines Council to that list?

George Young: My hon. Friend is right that the Sentencing Guidelines Council has made some proposals that would impact on short sentences. The Government's view is that short sentences are appropriate in many cases, particularly those that involve assault, and the Government will respond in due course to the views of the council.

Diana Johnson: Hull has already seen the withdrawal of the university of Lincoln from its Hull campus. I am particularly concerned about the Browne recommendations on funding and their effect on Hull university. Will the Leader of the House make space in Government time for us to debate the effects on local constituencies of the withdrawal of funding to higher education institutions?

George Young: The hon. Lady makes a serious point. I am sure that the House will want to debate, in due course, the recommendations of the Browne report. When we have details of how much is being made available in resources for next year, there might be an opportunity in the debate on the CSR to make the point that the hon. Lady has just made.

Nicholas Soames: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the necessary upheaval caused by the important work going on in many constituencies to amalgamate several special needs schools, their transfer on to the site often of other big schools and the traffic chaos that can ensue, understandably but regrettably? Will my right hon. Friend consult the Department for Transport to see whether there is an opportunity for a debate with Ministers both from the Department for Transport and the Department for Education present to try to hammer out some of those difficulties and see whether a more effective protocol could be found?

George Young: My hon. Friend makes a forceful point, and that sounds to me an ideal topic for a debate in Westminster Hall. I know that many local education authorities, when they are considering the amalgamation of schools or the construction of new schools, take into account the traffic that would be generated. Sometimes they make it a condition for approval of the expansion of a school that there should be a green transport to school policy. I can only encourage my hon. Friend to make a bid for a debate in Westminster Hall.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the Floor of the House on the Government's significant decision to allow deep-water drilling off the west of Shetland, a decision that raises serious environmental concerns, and which was slipped out at a time when the House was not sitting, when the relevant Select Committee had not yet reported, and when the US investigation into the gulf of Mexico disaster still is not complete?

George Young: I am not sure whether that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change or whether it falls to the Scottish Administration to resolve it. I shall make some inquiries and ensure that the hon. Lady gets an answer.

David Tredinnick: When does my right hon. Friend expect Parliament square to be cleared of demonstrators? Is he aware that the situation is worse than it was in the summer, with 20 illegally placed tents on the pavement meaning that nobody can use the square at all? When is he going to deal with this situation?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for once again raising this issue. I support the action that the Mayor of London took a few months ago to clear the green in the middle of the square, and I hope that that area will be restored to the condition in which it used to be. In the meantime, the camps have simply moved to the pavement. That is wholly unacceptable, and it is not what one should see in the centre of an historic capital city. We are going to consider legislation in the forthcoming Home Office Bill to put the situation right.

Dave Watts: May we have a debate on the Air Force's view that if it faces cuts, it is quite likely that it will be unable to protect Britain in the case of a 9/11-type attack in the future?

George Young: I said in my business statement that the Prime Minister would make a statement on the strategic defence and security review. I expect that there will be a debate shortly after that in which the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to raise his concerns.

John Redwood: As the Government strategy rests on raising £176 billion a year more tax at the end of this Parliament than last year, may we have an early debate on economic growth, the measures the Government can take to promote it, and how we can lift spirits in this country so that that is feasible?

George Young: My right hon. Friend will know that we have already introduced a number of measures to promote growth, such as reducing corporation tax and encouraging the establishment of new businesses in certain regions of the country. I hope that on the back of the CSR he will have the opportunity to make his points in the debate that I have just announced.

Paul Flynn: May we debate early-day motion 805 on the brutal, unfair and irrational proposal that would deny Wales and the west of England our only regional passport office and destroy the jobs of 250 loyal workers, who were recently commended by a Minister for their splendid can-do attitude?
	 [ That this House regrets the proposal to close the Newport Regional Passport Office which would result in the loss of 300 jobs and leave Wales and West of England without the services currently available only from regional offices; notes the closure would make Wales the only devolved nation in the UK without a regional office; welcom es the Newport passport workers' commendation for the high quality of their work and their can-do co-operation when faced with the new challenges; believes that moving work and jobs from Wales to London damagingly reverses the 50-year all-party policy of relocating public sector jobs from the South East of England to areas of high unemployment; and calls for the withdrawal of this irrational, wasteful proposal.]

George Young: Of course I understand the local concern about the proposed closure of the passport office in Newport. I will share that concern with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, so that she is aware of it, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Greg Mulholland: May we have a debate on the purpose and adequacy of the Office of Fair Trading, which today issued an extraordinary conclusion on the beer tie and the pub companies, whose conduct was widely criticised by the then Select Committee on Business and Enterprise? That criticism has been accepted by the previous Government and by this Government. May we have a debate on this important subject to see whether that body is fit for purpose?

George Young: I commend the work that the hon. Gentleman has done to safeguard pubs up and down the country in the last Parliament. The question of the OFT might arise in the statement to be made shortly by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

Nicholas Dakin: Earlier in the week, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that it was a "constructive" suggestion from Sir Philip Green for the Government to save money by delaying payments to suppliers for up to 45 days. Small and medium-sized enterprises will find that highly concerning, as they work hard to prosper in these difficult times. Will the Leader of the House find time for a statement on this issue to clarify the situation?

George Young: My view is that Government Departments should settle their bills promptly.

David Nuttall: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the scope of our health and safety legislation, because it appears that now even the Scouts are being prevented from enjoying their usual games and activities?

George Young: As a former Scout, I would regret any curtailment of the activities that I used to indulge in. I shall raise my hon. Friend's concerns with the appropriate Minister and get a reply.

Madeleine Moon: May we have a debate in Government time on the need to update copyright law, especially to protect small businesses such as The Priory, which is a hair and skin clinic in Bridgend? It inadvertently downloaded from the internet images that were not properly identified and has subsequently faced horrendous bills from Getty Images demanding that it make exorbitant payment for the accidental use of ill-marked images-

Paul Flynn: Disgraceful.

Madeleine Moon: It is disgraceful, as my hon. Friend says, and is damaging a number of small businesses that cannot afford to take legal action to protect themselves.

George Young: I share the hon. Lady's concern. I thought that there had been legislation relatively recently to address that problem, but if there is a loophole in it, I shall raise that with my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Mark Pritchard: May we have an urgent debate on Burma? With the Burmese elections due on 7 November, does the Leader of the House agree that those elections need to be free and fair, and that if the Burmese regime is serious about engaging with the international community it needs to honour its pledge and release Aung San Suu Kyi?

George Young: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend's point about the release, and I know that the British Government share that concern. He will have an opportunity on 16 November to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about this. Alternatively, he can apply for a debate in Westminster Hall or through the Backbench Business Committee.

Yvonne Fovargue: I would like to ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the real consequences for women of the proposed loss of child benefit-just one example of which would be the effect on their state pensions.

George Young: The hon. Lady raises a legitimate point about whether the loss of child benefit will have an impact on the entitlement to a state retirement pension in the wife's own right, and that is something that we will want to consider.

Christopher Pincher: Thanks to a bizarre decision by the Planning Inspectorate, next year Tamworth faces the prospect of severe traffic chaos and potentially long-term congestion thereafter. Will my right hon. Friend give an indication of when it will be the business of this House to abolish the Planning Inspectorate and devolve power to local planning decision makers? In the course of that debate, will we be able to discuss and review some of the decisions made by the inspectorate that have yet to be implemented?

George Young: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to address those concerns when we reach the localism Bill. We have no plans to abolish the Planning Inspectorate, which allows individuals a right of appeal against refusals by local authorities, but against that background we want to push down decisions, such as those that were previously taken by regional bodies, to a local level.

Nick Smith: I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 742, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy).
	 [That this House calls on the Secretary of State for Wales to propose a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee to discuss the implications for Wales of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.]
	Under current proposals, Wales will lose 25% of its parliamentary seats, yet there will be little time for discussion on the Floor of the House of the implications of that for Wales. Will the Leader of the House discuss that matter further with the Secretary of State for Wales, so that legitimate questions and grievances in Wales are given a proper hearing in the Welsh Grand Committee?

George Young: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has written to all Welsh Members setting out her decision not to refer the matter to the Welsh Grand Committee. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is the Minister with responsibility for political and constitutional issues, is giving evidence today to the Welsh Affairs Committee. The hon. Gentleman will also know that one reason why the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill is being taken on the Floor of the House is to allow Members from all parts of the UK to make their contributions. We have provided five days for debate in Committee of the whole House and two days on Report, which is an adequate opportunity for all Members to make their points. The specific issues concerning Wales arise under clause 11, and I hope that he will have an opportunity to contribute to that debate.

Lorely Burt: May we have a debate on plans by the banks to phase out the cheque? Cheque guarantee cards are due to be phased out in June next year, which will cause enough problems, but that will be nothing compared with the problems that will be caused for small business people, charities, the housebound, pensioners and many others. They will suffer for the convenience of bankers, who seem to have forgotten what customer service is.

George Young: My hon. Friend has raised concerns that are felt in constituencies represented on both sides of the House. As I understand it, the Payments Council announced last year that it had set a provisional date of 2018 to close the cheque-clearing system, and it is keen to hear as many views as possible. I also agree that that would be a perfectly legitimate subject for a debate. Perhaps she will contact the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and see whether it catches her eye.

John Spellar: Will the Leader of the House confirm whether we can expect a statement by either the Foreign Secretary or the Defence Secretary on the review of foreign and security policy on Monday? Does he share my concern at reports that that will be done by a written statement rather than by an oral statement here in the House, which would be subject to proper scrutiny?

George Young: I announced in my business statement that the Prime Minister will make a statement on the strategic defence and security review, and I announced a further statement by the Chancellor; I did not announce any other ones.

Priti Patel: Earlier this week, we witnessed the spectacle of the unapologetic chief executive of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs admitting to even more mistakes with PAYE and trying to justify a £50,000 a month fat cat salary to the head of IT in that bureaucratic organisation. At the same time, she refused to take any responsibility for the misery that that organisation is causing my constituents. May we have a debate in Government time on that organisation's failure to be more accountable and transparent?

George Young: Evidence has been given to the Public Accounts Committee by HMRC. The Government want to see the PAC report on HMRC before responding in due course. I will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's criticisms.

Bridget Phillipson: May we have a debate on the implications of the Government's changes to housing benefit? Many Members have raised serious concerns about the impact of those changes on driving up homelessness. In constituencies such as mine, where more than half of housing benefit claimants are over 60, the changes will hit pensioners particularly hard. In addition, the Government have been extremely unclear about the effect that the changes will have on homelessness provision, such as hostels and women's refuges.

George Young: I understand the hon. Lady's concern. There was a debate on housing benefit in Westminster Hall yesterday, but I am not sure whether she was able to attend. The proposed changes will require legislation, and there will be an opportunity as the legislation goes through Parliament to raise the issues that she touches on.

Rob Wilson: May we have a statement from the appropriate Minister on the dreadful-I mean dreadful-state of much of the education in our youth offenders institutions?

George Young: There may be an opportunity to raise that particular subject at Justice questions, or it may be an appropriate topic for a debate. In the meantime, I will draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Justice to my hon. Friend's concern.

Tom Greatrex: Will the Leader of the House inform us when we will get a statement on the future of the BBC World Service, particularly given my understanding that it is being treated not as a non-departmental public body or as a quango in the traditional sense, but as an arm's length organisation? The matter is particularly important given the work that the BBC World Service does around the globe.

George Young: Like the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to the work of the BBC World Service. It may be that that issue is better debated after next Wednesday's CSR.

John Stevenson: I was selected as a parliamentary candidate by virtue of an open primary. The coalition agreement includes a proposal to conduct 200 all-postal primaries during this Parliament. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on progress on that issue?

George Young: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that the coalition agreement includes a commitment to fund 200 all-postal primaries over the course of this Parliament as part of our overall programme of reform to make our politics more accountable. As he knows, we have already embarked on a major programme of constitutional reform. We are considering how best to take forward the proposal on all-postal primaries in the light of other changes that will impact on our electoral process.

Kevan Jones: Can we have a debate in Government time on the appointment yesterday of the Prime Minister's new military assistant to clarify not only the role of the Chief of the Defence Staff, but, more importantly, the role of Her Majesty the Queen as head of the armed forces? Yesterday, the justification from No. 10 was that both President Sarkozy and President Obama have military advisers and therefore so should our Prime Minister, which does not recognise the fact that they are Heads of State, unlike him.

George Young: I am sure that the Prime Minister is entitled to military advice. I will give the Prime Minister notice that after his statement on Tuesday he can expect a question along those lines from the hon. Gentleman.

Peter Bone: Last night, there was an absolutely splendid debate in the House: the Government Benches were packed; 44 Members spoke; and parliamentary history was made when for the first time the Government accepted an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on a European matter. However, the Opposition Benches were empty-Opposition Members were absent without leave. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Opposition to hold the Government to account?

George Young: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) was, of course, here. I am sorry that Opposition Members were not here, because they missed a first-class performance by the Economic Secretary. They also missed a moment of history, when, for the first time in my life, I voted for an amendment on Europe tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone.

Julie Hilling: In light of the huge threat to hundreds of voluntary and community groups in my constituency and across the country because of cuts imposed by the Government, may we have a debate on the Government's vision for the big society?

George Young: I say very gently to the hon. Lady that the cuts imposed by the Government-to use her words-are necessary because of the deficit that we inherited from the previous Labour Government, who had pencilled in 20% cuts. Until Labour Members are much more open than they have been to date about how they would deal with the deficit, they have no credibility whatsoever on financial issues.

Tony Baldry: The cull of quangos is welcome in enhancing accountability, but the corollary is that that accountability must go to Secretaries of State and Departments. Will my right hon. Friend instruct the Table Office and the departmental parliamentary Clerks to be more welcoming on the tabling of written questions to Departments? There should be a general principle that if a Department spends money on it, we should be able to ask questions about it.

George Young: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which relates to the announcement in the written ministerial statement that Ministers will have direct responsibility for a number of issues that were previously covered by quangos. It follows from that that there should be a change in process at the Table Office to recognise the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

Gregg McClymont: The Government efficiency tsar, Sir Philip Green, is famously efficient in organising his own tax affairs. May I add my voice to the clamour from across the House for a debate on the antisocial behaviour of tax avoiders?

George Young: I think that that issue was raised and dealt with by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in departmental questions. As I said in reply to one of my hon. Friends, we welcome the initiatives of HMRC to close down tax avoidance. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific scheme in mind, perhaps he would like to contact the Treasury.

Robert Halfon: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on houses in multiple occupancy owned by private landlords? A constituent of mine, Mrs Sullivan, has talked to me in my surgery about overcrowding and antisocial behaviour in some HMOs in Harlow that are becoming an urgent problem.

George Young: Local authorities have fairly extensive powers in relation to HMOs. My hon. Friend might want to establish whether his local authority is using those powers. If he believes that there is a deficiency in the powers available to local authorities, I would be happy to raise that issue with my hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Kevin Brennan: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider having a word with the Secretary of State for Wales about holding a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee? I cannot remember an occasion in recent years on which there has been overwhelming demand for such a meeting and it has been denied by the Secretary of State. Not even the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who is in his place, would have done such a thing when he was Secretary of State for Wales. Rather than just face me down at this point, will the Leader of the House agree to have a word with her and to think again?

George Young: The Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister with responsibility for political and constitutional reform, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, discussed the Bill's provisions and their effect on Wales with Members who represent Welsh constituencies at a recent meeting in the House. The Secretary of State has set out her reasons for not acceding to the request of the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy). There are Welsh-specific clauses in the Bill that will provide adequate opportunities for Members from Wales to have the same opportunity as other Members to raise their concerns in the House.

Brian Binley: The regulators are placing great demands on the banks to build up capital reserves while, as we learned today, 125,000 small businesses are in danger of going to the wall. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time so that we can talk about ways of unlocking that money to ensure that small businesses can play their part in ensuring the success of the Budget strategy?

George Young: Of course the banks, particularly those in which the Government have a substantial stake, should help to promote recovery by lending to small businesses that have worthwhile propositions. I am not sure that there is a total contradiction between rebuilding the balance sheets on the one hand and lending to small businesses on the other. If one has a robust balance sheet, it should be possible to make more provision for lending.

Michael Connarty: It is quite clear that the comprehensive spending review will mean massive consequential cuts for the funding of the Scottish Government. We understand that a dirty deal has been done between the Conservatives and their new Scottish National party allies to postpone those cuts for one year. What will the Leader of the House do to ensure that the figures are published so that people will know what the double-whammy cuts will be in the second year, and how will they be scrutinised by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs or the Scottish Grand Committee?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman must await the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer next Wednesday. Perhaps he will catch your eye, Mr Speaker, and ask questions about the consequences for Scotland of the overall settlement in the UK.

Julian Smith: May we have a debate about the recent Commission for Rural Communities report that highlighted major issues with access to services in rural North Yorkshire?

George Young: I have a rural constituency, like my hon. Friend, in which it is often more difficult to provide a range of services. I hope that the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, who heard that question, will add it to her list of bids.

Valerie Vaz: My constituent James Goodman is a hard-working electrician who has invested in property in Egypt only to find that local builders have seized that property. His only advice from the embassy has been to get a lawyer. He has done that, and it has cost him more than £9,000. The Russian Government have looked after their citizens and have made representations to the Egyptian Government. May we have an early debate on what this Government are going to do to protect British citizens abroad?

George Young: I am sorry to hear what has happened to the hon. Lady's constituent. I suggest that she applies for an Adjournment debate and seeks the support of a Foreign Office Minister in the cause that she has just espoused.

Mr Speaker: Last, but certainly not least, I call Mr Ian Austin.

Ian Austin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Despite what the Leader of the House said earlier, the rate at which emergency cold weather payments will be made this year was fixed on Monday when the regulations were made. As things stand, 4 million of Britain's poorest families and pensioners stand to have their benefits cut by two thirds and to receive just £8.50. Should not the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions come to the House at the earliest opportunity to clear this shambles up?

George Young: The rate of payment will be announced in the spending review next week. We are committed to helping vulnerable people and we will continue to make cold weather payments as and when they may be triggered, but we will not comment on the rate of those payments ahead of the spending review.

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful both to the Leader of the House and to all colleagues whose succinctness has meant that all 44 hon. Members who wished to question the Leader of the House have had the chance to do so. That shows what can be done when we put our minds to it.

Public Bodies Reform

Francis Maude: Today, the Government have taken decisive action to restore accountability and responsibility to public life. For too long, this country has tolerated Ministers who duck the difficult decisions they were elected to make. For too long, we have had too many people who were unaccountable, with a licence to meddle in people's lives. For too long, we have had quango pay spiralling out of control, so that seven people in the Audit Commission are paid more than £150,000 a year at a time when the average civil servant's pay is £23,000.
	The landscape for public bodies needs radical reform to increase transparency and accountability, to cut out duplication of activity and to discontinue activities that are simply no longer needed. My written statement this morning outlined the start of a process to curtail the quango state. I have led an intensive review into public bodies, subjecting each to four tests. The first test was existential and asked, does the body need to exist and do its functions need to be carried out at all? The answer to that question in some cases was no. For example, we decided that the Government probably do not need an independent body to deliberate on the purchase of wine.
	If, as in most cases, the body's functions were deemed necessary, we then sought to establish whether those functions should properly be carried out at arm's length to government. If the body carries out a highly technical activity, is required to be politically impartial or needs to act independently to establish facts, then it is right for it to remain outside direct ministerial accountability. That is the case with bodies such as the new Office for Budget Responsibility and Ofgem. However, any quango that does not meet one of these tests will be either brought back into a Department or devolved to local authorities-in both of which cases, there will be democratic accountability-or its functions will be carried out outside the state altogether in the private or voluntary sectors.
	We have gone through an extensive process to determine the outcome of the review. Our first task was quite simply to identify how many quangos there are and what they do. It may sound absurd but it was and remains incredibly difficult to gain firm information on such bodies. Many do not publish accounts, there is no central list and there are myriad different types all with different statuses. The official list of non-departmental public bodies has 679 bodies, excluding those in Northern Ireland, but that does not include non-ministerial Departments, Government-owned public corporations or trading funds. Our review covered 901 bodies and we believe, but cannot be certain, that that is the true extent of the landscape. I stress that departmental agencies-Executive agencies-are not in the review's scope. They are directly controlled by Ministers who are accountable to Parliament for what they do.
	Once we established the overall lists, each Department went through a rigorous process to determine whether each of its quangos met any of the tests. The list I have published today is not complete but is a work in progress. The House will note that a number of bodies are subject to a longer-term review-for example, the Children's Commissioner and the Office for Fair Access.
	Of the 901 bodies in the review, substantial reforms are proposed for more than half. We propose that 192 should cease to be public bodies at all and that 118 should be merged down into 57 successor bodies, removing wasteful and complicating duplication of effort. Some 171 bodies are proposed for substantial reform while retaining their current status. For those bodies that we are abolishing, I stress that in many cases that does not mean the end of the function. Abolishing the regional development agencies, for example, does not mean that we no longer care about promoting regional business- [ Interruption. ] The Opposition's response is very revealing, because it suggests something fundamental about what we are trying to change: the assumption that one can prove that one cares about something only if one sets up a quango. We think that there is a different and a better answer, and that we can promote regional business in a better way.
	Since the introduction of RDAs, regional imbalances have become not better, but worse, and the development agencies carried a staggering £212 million in administration costs. We believe that local businesses and local authorities are better placed to decide what they need, not highly paid executives imposed on them by Government. An activity does not need an unaccountable bureaucratic structure to signify its importance; the exact converse is true. If something is important, someone who is elected should make decisions about how it is done. That is why we are bringing a host of functions back into Departments, such as those of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission and the Renewable Fuels Agency to name but two.
	All remaining public bodies will be subject to a rigorous triennial review to ensure that the previous pattern of public bodies often outliving the purpose for which they were established is not repeated. They will be expected to become more open, accountable and efficient. In the new year, I shall outline to the House in more detail the new framework for those remaining quangos.
	All proposed changes will be delivered within Departments' spending review settlements. Those bodies whose status is being retained may be subjected to further reforms following the spending review, in the same way as all other parts of the public sector. I want to acknowledge the dedication and hard work of those who work in public bodies. We are committed to working with the chairs and chief executives of those bodies to ensure that change is conducted as fairly and as smoothly as possible.
	To enable the proposed changes to be implemented, the Government will shortly introduce a public bodies Bill, which will give Ministers power to make changes to named statutory bodies. Other forthcoming legislation, such as the education Bill and the localism Bill, will also be used to make changes directly.
	I believe that these reforms are the first and necessary step to restoring proper democratic accountability to public life. They signal a complete culture change in government, from one that ducks difficult decisions, is opaque and allows profligacy, inflated salaries and waste, to an Administration who are open and transparent about what they do, with Ministers who take responsibility for their actions and are mindful of every penny of taxpayers' money. I commend these reforms to the House.

Liam Byrne: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for early sight of his statement-in the  Financial Times, The Guardian and  The Daily Telegraph this morning. He is a man who appreciates the courtesies of this House, so I know that he will provide you, Mr Speaker, with an explanation of how the media could possibly have been briefed before Members were.
	May I, however, start on a note of consensus? I thank the Minister for his work in completing a process that was set in train during my time at the Treasury. In March I told the House that 123 quangos would need to close, and from first glance at this statement it appears that two thirds of the 192 arm's length bodies that need to close are those that I announced in March. Instead of 20% of quangos being closed, the Minister has announced that 25% will be.
	I am grateful, too, that his tests largely confirmed the approach that I set out in March. I welcome his endorsement of the principles of a sunset clause for quangos and of triennial reviews. I am especially grateful for his confirmation of our decision to mutualise British Waterways, which will be an important institution in the third sector that I know we both support.
	May I, however, raise the slightly obvious question about the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has conducted this exercise? All of us want to improve accountability-it was one of the three principles that we set out in the ALB review in March-but we also want to save money, and once upon a time I thought that the current Prime Minister agreed, because, in a typically thoughtful and measured intervention, he said in October 2008:
	"Sound money means...destroying all these useless quangos and initiatives."
	Now the Minister tells us that the Prime Minister in fact got it wrong. Saving money
	"is not the principal objective",
	he told the "Today" programme this morning.
	Labour's plan would have saved £500 billion by 2012-13. Now we are told that the Government's approach will not in all cases save money at all. In fact, it could cost more money than it saves at the Audit Commission, the RDAs, the UK Film Council, Standards for England and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. I am afraid that the Minister has become the most expensive butcher in the country. His friend the Chancellor will no doubt be delighted.
	Will the Minister, first, set out the total cost of implementing the plan this year and next? He should have those figures at his fingertips now that the review is almost complete. Secondly, can he explain the impact on jobs and unemployment? Organisations such as the UK Film Council help to strengthen industry and tax revenues. What estimate has he made of the impact of his announcement on growth and jobs? Thirdly, the principle of independence is sometimes important, and I am glad that he acknowledges that, but it is not clear how he has applied it in all cases. For example, we need to hear a little more from the Minister about the Football Licensing Authority. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport infamously had to apologise for blaming Liverpool fans for the Hillsborough tragedy; now the Government are scrapping the organisation established to ensure that a Hillsborough never happens again, without being clear about what will be put in its place.
	Finally, in March I introduced a new principle whereby quangos would be set up only as a last resort. The Minister's statement confirms his presumption that state activity should be undertaken by bodies that are democratically accountable. His party's manifesto promised 20 new quangos-one third of the extra quangos that he has abolished today. Will he confirm that those quangos will not go ahead?

Francis Maude: It is very good to have such a consensual approach from the man who famously told the world on leaving government that there was no money left. There will be savings as a result of the process, and there need to be because the right hon. Gentleman was a prominent member of a Government who left office spending £4 for every £3 of revenue. They were having to borrow £1 out of every £4 just to keep the lights on, the teachers in the schools, the pensions being paid and the doctors and nurses in the hospitals. This Government have to clear up the mess that his Government shamefully left behind, and there will be savings from the process.

Liam Byrne: How much?

Francis Maude: We became used to the previous Labour Government bandying around large numbers in respect of the savings that they proposed to make, but we know that when the National Audit Office went around after those much vaunted efficiency exercises over which he and his colleagues presided, it found that in most cases they had not saved money at all. It was all about the optics and trying to make a point; it had nothing to do with reality.
	I am sorry to say that jobs will be lost as a result of this process, but, in order to clear up the fiscal mess that the right hon. Gentleman's Government left behind, that is sadly an inevitability. Savings will be made as a result of the exercise, but, as I said at the outset, it is not principally about saving money, although it will do so. It is principally about increasing accountability-the important presumption that when an activity is carried out by the state, and there is no pressing need to do so at arm's length from government, it should be carried out by someone who is accountable democratically, either a Minister who is accountable to this House and, through this House, to the public, or a local authority that is accountable to local residents.
	It is very good that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with our approach and thinks it sensible. He tried to claim credit for it himself, actually, so, as the various bodies that we have discussed today start to complain, as some will, and as some vested interests will with a very loud voice, I shall be able to tell them that our approach is a consensual one-that the Labour party wants to play its full part in responsibility for the whole exercise.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. There is a lot of interest and little time, so brevity both from Back Benchers and Front Benchers is vital.

John Redwood: How will we be less bossed about and over-regulated as a result of these changes?

Dennis Skinner: Not very much.

Francis Maude: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) says, rather regretfully, "Not very much." It sounds as though he wants us to be more regulated and bossed around-that is somehow in his nature.
	The answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) is that some functions will not be carried out at all. The key point is that the presumption will be that where there is a state activity, at least he and the rest of the House will be able to hold a Minister to account for what is done. What people find so irritating is the sense that there has been incontinently set up, in large part by the previous Government, this huge amount of activity by bodies that are in no way accountable: no one can hold them accountable for what they do. That is what we are seeking to change.

Jack Straw: May I first invite the Minister, in the spirit of consensus that we certainly want on this, to show just a tiny bit of humility in recognising that the high point of the unaccountable quango state was under the Major Government, of whom he was, I think, an adornment? At that time, outrageously, as I found when I became Home Secretary, having endured it in opposition, even parliamentary questions to the Secretary of State about prisons were being answered not by a Minister but by the chief executive of the agency concerned. That was preposterous and it happened under a Conservative Government, but we ended it very quickly. I hope that he recognises that the history goes right back to the Major Government.
	Secondly, may I ask the Minister a specific question about the Youth Justice Board? I set that up; I accept that it does not have life eternal and that there is a case for reviewing its future. However, will he ensure that as its future is reviewed, its key functions of delivering effective youth justice are preserved?

Francis Maude: It is a pleasure to welcome the right hon. Gentleman into our big tent; it is open to all-comers, and it is a delight to have him as a resident. I think that he confuses the role of Executive agencies with the function of a quango. It seems to me perfectly proper that when Members of Parliament inquire about an activity they receive a reply from the Executive agency's chief executive. That does not mean that that agency is not accountable to Parliament through what a Minister says and does. The right hon. Gentleman will have found himself, as Home Secretary, directly accountable to this House for those functions.
	Some of the functions performed by the Youth Justice Board will continue to be very important, but we take the view that the need for independent oversight of the process has now outlived its usefulness.

Andrew Bingham: I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that overall costs will be reduced. A Local Government Association publication of December last year outlined 790 quangos costing £43 billion. How can he ensure that more quangos will not reappear as some disappear?

Francis Maude: I am sure that there will occasionally be a case for new independent bodies coming into existence, but they will need to meet rigorous tests. They will need to show that they are needed to provide a seriously technical function, or that the function has to be carried out in a way that is demonstrably politically impartial, or that they are measuring facts in some way that requires there to be independence. The Office for Budget Responsibility, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set up early in the life of this Government, is one such body that meets all those tests. They will have to go through a rigorous process before consent is given to their creation.

George Howarth: Does the Minister accept that some of these bodies were set up almost as debts of honour? I particularly mention the Football Licensing Authority and the Human Tissue Authority, which were set up respectively after the Hillsborough stadium disaster and the scandal at Alder Hey hospital. Does he accept that a lot of people who were affected by those events will be aghast that that debt of honour has now been reneged on by this Government?

Francis Maude: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I know how deeply he, and many people, feel about that. Those two events caused a deep scar in the lives and memories of very many people, and they were scars on the life and history of this country. I would simply make this point to him: we should not be setting up bodies, or retaining bodies in existence, merely for symbolic purposes. It will remain important that there is expertise about safety measures in football grounds. That function does not disappear, but it does not necessarily need to have its own separate, unaccountable organisation to dispense it. Similarly, the functions of the Human Tissue Authority can be carried out perfectly properly within the plethora of regulatory bodies in the health sector, to which my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is rightly applying some reforming rigour.

Mark Williams: Liberal Democrat Back Benchers welcome the statement on the grounds of cost, improved efficiency and, above all, embarking on dealing with the problem of democratic deficit. However, behind the names of these organisations there are many people genuinely fearful for their jobs. Will the Minister emphasise this line in his statement: "For those bodies that we are abolishing, I should stress that in many cases this does not mean the end of the function"? That is very important, and that reassurance needs to be made to many other people.
	On the ending of Consumer Focus and the passing of its responsibilities to citizens advice bureaux, the Minister is aware that there are many concerns about funding for Citizens Advice at a central level. What discussions has he had with his colleagues about enhancing the role of CABs and, indeed, increased funding-

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I will be grateful to the Minister for a brief reply.

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly proper point about staff. We hope that jobs will not be lost, although some will be; we recognise that every single one is a personal disaster for the family involved. The chief executives of all bodies affected by the changes I am announcing should have communicated with staff this morning to give them as much certainty as possible about the future.
	As regards Consumer Focus and consumer activities, the funding implications are being considered by my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, and results will emerge in due course. We recognise that we cannot just hand these functions over to outside bodies without there being any resource implications.

Mark Durkan: In pursuit of his body count, did the Minister consider the role of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which has upheld absolutely no complaints against the security services and has never offered any reason? Its existence is merely a deceit of scrutiny to mask the conceit of unaccountable, secret powers. Has he found any more faceless, toothless or spineless creature in the eco-system of Government?

Francis Maude: The hon. Gentleman encourages me to have a very good look.

Caroline Dinenage: In Gosport, we face the prospect that our outstanding Navy engineering training school at HMS Sultan will move to St Athan in Wales under a massive and unnecessarily expensive private finance initiative. What will happen to some of the other outrageous PFIs that quangos have entered into, such as the National School of Government?

Francis Maude: As we spend more time in government and pick up stones, we find quite a lot of contracts in place that make one wonder a bit about the diligence that Ministers took in exploring them at the time. Going through the detail of contracts is not necessarily the most amusing way to spend one's life, but it is rather important because there is a lot of public money involved; the body to which my hon. Friend refers is one such example.

Alison McGovern: Will the Minister say what will happen to the functions of the Football Licensing Authority and who will give its world-class advice on safety? That is an issue of high importance to my constituents and to many others around the country.

Francis Maude: The FLA does not license football grounds, of course. That responsibility rests in all cases with local authorities, which will continue to exercise that incredibly important function. The central expertise to support the licensing activity could exist in a number of bodies, such as the Health and Safety Executive, or the Football Association could provide it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport will explore all those options.

David Rutley: I congratulate the Minister on the speed with which he has taken forward the review and this activity.  [Interruption.] Well, it was completely ducked by the Labour Government. What further steps is he taking to give the remaining public bodies an increased focus on effectiveness and value for money, which is much needed as part of the culture changes set out in his statement?

Francis Maude: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. In my written statement and the list attached it, we have identified 40 bodies that are still under review, in many cases because a formal review has been launched but has not yet reached its end. The Chancellor's comprehensive spending review, which I believe he will announce to the House next Wednesday, will set out the spending envelopes for all remaining bodies and place them under considerable financial rigour. For those that remain independent bodies there will be more transparency, which we have already started with the disclosure of higher salaries above £150,000. That has raised a number of questions about how those bodies are run.

Ian Lucas: Some of the most vulnerable people in Wrexham work at the local Remploy factory. What kind of Government is it who include two words-"under consideration"-about their jobs, and what consultation is the Department for Work and Pensions undertaking with people whose jobs the Government are threatening?

Francis Maude: To put it bluntly to the hon. Gentleman, it is a Government who are having clear up an appalling mess left by his party, which left office spending £4 for every £3 in revenue. This coalition Government are having to reduce and eliminate a budget deficit that was created by his party with gross irresponsibility. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is undertaking a serious review of the future status of Remploy, and is very much aware of its good work and the valuable employment that it provides for many disabled people.

Bob Russell: Quango is not a description usually associated with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. If it is not on the Minister's culling list, will he please consider putting it in there? This morning, IPSA refused to refund the cost of an advertisement for an advice bureau for my constituents. Is that not an affront to the House? Perhaps the Minister would like to invite Sir Philip Green to take over IPSA. I am pretty sure that the backroom staff of Topshop could do a far better job.

Francis Maude: I have been invited to go down that path before, and I am a cautious fellow so I shall resist the temptation to do so. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his endorsement of the approach that Sir Philip Green has taken in helping the Government pick up a number of stones to find out exactly what is crawling around underneath.

David Cairns: The Minister is proposing to merge UK Sport and Sport England, which do quite distinct jobs-there is a clue in their titles. From his existential ruminations, will he tell me how he proposes to guarantee that elite athletes in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who are getting magnificent support from UK Sport in the run-up to the Olympic games, are not disadvantaged by what is effectively a takeover by Sport England, which understandably has a quite different focus?

Francis Maude: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport will no doubt be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's regular questions about how that will work.

David Cairns: You merged them.

Francis Maude: This is cross-Government activity, and the review has taken place across the Government. The hon. Gentleman will find that my right hon. Friends in charge of other Departments will make statements publicly today, and then he can pursue the matter. Of course the two organisations have different focuses, but they none the less cover a lot of the same ground. Having two separate lots of unproductive overheads when one set could do the job just as well does not seem a good way to spend taxpayers' money.

Dominic Raab: I commend the Minister for his statement. Does he agree that the problem with quangos is not just their cost but their effectiveness? Competition law is vital for a free market, but having three regulatory bodies-the Office of Fair Trading, the Competition Commission and the European Commission-has made business more bureaucratic and regulation less effective. When Lloyds bought HBOS, the OFT's competition concerns were brushed aside with a wink and a nudge from the last Prime Minister at a cocktail party. Does the Minister agree that that is a good example of how less overlapping bureaucracy can mean more independent and robust regulation?

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend is completely right. The way in which the competition scrutiny process, which is really important for an effective economy, currently works can be very complex, confused and slow. If we can simplify it by merging competition functions into one place, as we propose, there will be a benefit for the economy and for business and it will assist in creating jobs, which will be really important.

Kate Green: I noted with interest that the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission was one of the bodies to be brought back within the Government tent. Of course, it has not been subject to the same lack of public confidence as the Child Support Agency suffered for many years. How can the Minister guarantee that the stakeholders whose interests are put at the heart of the CMEC's functions within Government are parents and, crucially, children, and not primarily the state, as was the case with the CSA?

Francis Maude: I suppose the short answer to the hon. Lady is that this Government believe that Ministers should make themselves available to be held to account for what is done in their name. I understand that the previous Government preferred not to do that and set up independent bodies to carry out important functions. The child maintenance function does not meet any of the three tests that I set out. It obviously needs to exist, but it does not need to be politically impartial, and indeed Ministers should be ready to be held to account for it.

Richard Harrington: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) said, I have found that in the case of a quango that I have been dealing with, the UK Film Council, the industry is delighted that in future it will have direct access to Government instead of having to go through a third party. My concern, however, is that the same people who are working in such quangos will simply become Government employees. What measures will he take to ensure that that does not happen?

Francis Maude: I suppose from my hon. Friend's point of view the bad news is that many of them will become Government employees, but in those circumstances Ministers will be held responsible for what they do. I make no apology for restating that the principal purpose of the review is to increase accountability. The fact that someone becomes a civil servant employed directly by a Government Department rather than by a public body will make them more accountable, not less. We will be able to drive value for money and effectiveness much better.

Tom Clarke: On the same subject, the Minister did not respond to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) asked about the UK Film Council. I declare an interest: I co-chaired with Stewart Till of Universal the review "A Bigger Picture", which led to the formation of the council. I am sure the Minister would agree that since that time, there has been a huge renaissance of the British film industry. How can it be considered achievable and accountable to switch responsibilities from the council to the British film industry, and how can he say that we will have access to more transparency?

Francis Maude: I treat what the right hon. Gentleman says with great respect, because I know that he has a long background in the film industry. He is passionate about it and has done a huge amount in the course of his illustrious career to support it, but I take issue with his central contention. The implication of what he sets forth is that the excellent renaissance of the British film industry is somehow inextricably linked with the creation of the UK Film Council, but the creativity of the people who make films delivered that. I find that there has been a mixed response to the announcement that the UK Film Council will be abolished, which was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport back in July. Very many eminent people in the film industry say that the UK Film Council's work was not central to the great success of the British film industry, but marginal in many cases.

Robert Halfon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that hard-working taxpayers in my constituency will be glad that their taxes will no longer subsidise regional bureaucrats and quangos in the east of England? Does he also agree that that work could be done much better by local federations of small businesses and chambers of commerce, and that the new local enterprise partnerships should be lean and mean?

Francis Maude: I am confident that they will be, because they will be under much closer local control. Local business organisations will contribute to them and local authorities, which are of course democratically accountable, will influence them. The fact is that regional development agencies did not contribute to narrowing the regional imbalances in our economy. In fact, those imbalances got worse and not better when the agencies existed over the lifetime of the previous Labour Government. This Government believe that support for local and regional businesses that is focused more locally and that is more locally accountable is likely to deliver greater success.

Derek Twigg: There is great concern in the field of health about the impact of the changes in terms of loss of expertise, which we will examine closely in the coming days and weeks. Would the Minister today like to give a guarantee on the Floor of the House that there will be absolutely no loss of expertise?

Francis Maude: I am pretty sure there will be no such loss. If functions need to be carried out, the expertise deployed in doing so will be maintained.

Andrew Turner: How will the Minister ensure that quangos handed back to the Government do not generate more costly parliamentary questions?

Francis Maude: The number of parliamentary questions generated is not a matter of where functions sit within government, but generally a matter of how many questions my hon. Friend and other colleagues in the House ask. If bodies become more democratically accountable through the House, they will be subject to more parliamentary questions-by definition-but it seems to me that that is a good thing and not a bad thing. That is what accountability is about.

Tristram Hunt: Now that the much-vaunted bonfire of the quangos has turned into a clammy Sunday afternoon barbecue, may I congratulate the Minister on his plans for British Waterways? He seems to be taking exactly the right approach, but we await information on the allocation of property assets.
	What do the Government plan to do with the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts? May I also urge the Minister to encourage his right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary to hurry up in sorting out the future of Independent Living Fund, because that is causing real concern to my constituents?

Francis Maude: I am sure my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary will have heard the hon. Gentleman's last point and I know that he is addressing the matter with urgency. I welcome the hon. Gentleman into the big tent as far as the British Waterways Board is concerned. That is a good route to follow.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the future of NESTA, which will become an independent endowment outside the Government. When the Bill that set it up went through the House, I was the Opposition spokesman, and I urged that it should be set up as a wholly independent endowment that is outside, and not in any way subject to the whim of, the Government.

David Nuttall: Although I welcome the proposal for a triennial review of the remaining quangos, can my right hon. Friend confirm that if it becomes clear that a quango no longer serves a useful purpose, it will be abolished immediately, without waiting for the completion of the three-year review?

Francis Maude: Yes.

Gisela Stuart: Going through the list of quangos in the Department of Health, I can see the logic of pooling some of their regulatory functions together. However, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority provided more than regulatory functions; it also provided the forum for some very tricky ethical debates, without which the previous Parliament would have been unable to pass some of the legislation on such matters, because debates would have polarised along political or religious lines. Can the Minister assure me where that function of that authority now lies? Will he reconsider that change? The Health Secretary will have heard that as well because he has just arrived in the Chamber.

Francis Maude: We will end up with a single regulator for medical research. At the moment, such functions are dispersed quite widely. The functions of the HFEA and the Human Tissue Authority will lie within that single regulator.

Tony Baldry: As my right hon. Friend will know, the Oxford canal goes right through the heart of my constituency. Waterway users generally will welcome the opportunities provided by the setting up of a new waterways trust. However, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) made an important point when he asked what happens to existing British Waterways assets. Will they be transferred to a new waterways trust? Presumably, in this as in any other aspect of my right hon. Friend's statement, Secretaries of State for the Departments concerned will be willing to answer written parliamentary questions about the detail of such matters. The changes provide an enormous opportunity for civil society to engage in the running and maintenance of our waterways.

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend is completely right on that. Secretaries of State will indeed be willing to answer detailed questions on exactly those issues. On many of the changes, complicated questions arise on the ownership of assets and where they will end up. The public bodies Bill will provide a power by secondary legislation to deal with asset distribution, and I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will have heard my hon. Friend's concerns about British Waterways Board assets.

Cathy Jamieson: I have heard the Minister say a number of times that if something is important, Ministers ought to take decisions on it and to be accountable. In that context, does he believe that consumer protection and a consumer voice are important? If so, why has he chosen specifically to abolish Consumer Focus and to transfer its functions to Citizens Advice? The latter is a worthy organisation, but it surely has enough to do in coping with the increasing demands for advice that result directly from the Government's welfare reforms.

Francis Maude: The short point is that citizens advice bureaux carry a high degree of trust with citizens. They exist locally and are well supported, and they manage to mobilise very large amounts of voluntary activity. We must get away from the slightly outdated idea that to show that we care about something very much, we must set up a quango to express it.

Priti Patel: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the complete abolition of the Union Modernisation Fund Supervisory Board, which wasted hard-earned taxpayers' money holding secret meetings in expensive hotels? It effectively handed taxpayers' money to the trade unions. Will he give an assurance that he will take action to prevent such abuses of taxpayers' money from happening in again?

Francis Maude: We have not taken a decision on the future of the Union Modernisation Fund itself, but my hon. Friend raises genuine concerns about the way in which the supervisory body operated. In the previous Parliament, I asked a number of questions about the publication of its minutes, but somewhat to my surprise I discovered that no such minutes were kept. That is the epitome of unaccountability and lack of transparency, which is exactly what I am seeking to address.

Kevan Jones: The decision to strangle at birth the chief coroners office will be viewed with dismay by many organisations, including the Royal British Legion, which campaigned for it to improve the coroners service. Can he explain why the Opposition supported the proposal during consideration of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, but now they are in government they wish to abolish the office?

Francis Maude: In government, you have to look very carefully at the costs and accountability. Ministers have not been convinced that setting up an independent overarching body of that nature is essential to the proper delivery of this important national function.

Sarah Wollaston: I am looking forward to warming my hands in front of the bonfire of the quangos, with 192 on the flames. Can my right hon. Friend confirm how many quangos were abolished under the last Administration?

Francis Maude: I have learned to treat the claims made by the last Government with some scepticism, because they often claimed to have got rid of things, but on closer scrutiny they turned out to be merely resting, not defunct. I do not know whether this is a bonfire or, in the term used by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), a damp Sunday afternoon barbecue, but we should not knock barbecues.

Andrew Love: The Minister talked, both in his statement and in answer to questions, about exorbitant pay in quangos and the public sector. Would it not add force to his argument if he and his colleagues also talked about exorbitant pay in the private sector? On the transfer of employees from quangos back to the public services, I seek reassurance that their pay and conditions will be protected in that process.

Francis Maude: There is a bit of a difference between pay in the private sector and pay in the public sector- [ Interruption. ] The fact that the hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to make the distinction tells us a lot about the mentality behind the last Government. In the public sector, it is taxpayers' money that is being spent and Ministers have a responsibility to ensure that it is well spent. The fact that they did not is one of the reasons why we are now facing the scale of budget deficit that we are. The transparency that we have applied to pay in the quangos has meant that people have been shocked to find out how profligate some of the pay has been.
	On the transfer of staff into the civil service, the terms and conditions will of course be transferred according to the TUPE rules, as the hon. Gentleman would expect.

Henry Smith: In a previous existence, I was a leader of a local authority, and three things got in the way of effectiveness-an increasing lack of democratic authority; an over-burdensome inspection regime; and a lack of funding. All three of those problems often stemmed from the existence of far too many quangos. I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend that functions presently carried out by quangos that are to be abolished will be devolved to the local level.

Francis Maude: Wherever possible, that is our preference. We believe in localism and in trusting local authorities to take responsibility for what they do. Our commitment to localism does not only mean devolving to local authorities. In the case of consumer functions, for example, we think that devolving beyond local authorities to citizens advice bureaux is potentially a better approach. However, I can confirm our preference to devolve powers to as close to the front line of where citizens use services as possible.

Chi Onwurah: Does the proposal to abolish Consumer Focus and transfer its functions to citizens advice bureaux mean that in the coalition's big society a consumer and a citizen are one and the same thing?

Francis Maude: In my experience, which I agree is limited, citizens tend to be consumers and consumers tend to be citizens, so I am not absolutely certain what point the hon. Lady is trying to make.

Stephen Barclay: Current legislation requires Departments to get the best possible price for Government assets such as furniture, computers and other items. As part of the big society agenda, will the Minister consider whether donations could be made or other disposal routes used to support voluntary organisations, charities and other bodies that are being squeezed at the moment and could make good use of those resources?

Francis Maude: That is an admirable suggestion, which I will take away and ponder.

Dawn Primarolo: I thank hon. Members and Ministers. A great many Members managed to ask short pithy questions on the statement and the answers were also short.

Points of Order

David Davis: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The last century has seen changes to this House, almost all of which have been to the advantage of the Executive and the disadvantage of Back Benchers. One change that has improved that situation has been the allowance of time for Back-Bench debates. I know that the Government's amendment on the Order Paper today has not been selected, but it would have had the effect of removing the entire motion except for the first three words, and that would be a very bad trend. Can you ask Mr Speaker to look at this issue, consider what would be appropriate in terms of amending Back-Bench motions and make it clear to both Front Benches that such debates are not a second-class Opposition day?

Dawn Primarolo: I remind the House that the amendment has not been selected and that Mr Speaker always considers carefully the question of whether to select an amendment. He takes all the relevant factors into account and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be reassured that Mr Speaker will continue to do that with the vigilance that he has demonstrated to date.

Alistair Carmichael: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your assistance on that matter, but I have had regard to the terms of page 397 of the 23rd edition of "Erskine May" and-while I would of course not seek in any way to challenge the authority of Mr Speaker or the decision that he has made in exercise of that authority today-I struggle to find a precedent for his decision not to select the Secretary of State's amendment today. I am sure that it would be of enormous assistance to the House-

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman is challenging the selection decisions of Mr Speaker and that is not in order. I have made it absolutely clear that Mr Speaker has taken the decision on the selection of amendments today taking into consideration all of the relevant factors, and he does not require prompting from the Front Bench on this matter.

Alistair Carmichael: Further to that point of order-

Dawn Primarolo: It had better be further to that point of order rather than persistence in challenging the decision on selection.

Alistair Carmichael: I wish to place on record beyond peradventure that I do not seek to challenge in any way the decision that has been made. I merely seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, or possibly at some later stage the guidance of Mr Speaker himself, as to what new considerations are apparently taken into account in making these decisions.

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the selection of amendments is not discussed on the Floor of the House. They are a matter for Mr Speaker, having taken into consideration all the relevant factors, which he is perfectly capable of doing. I am sure that he will note the points that have been made today, but no further points can be made to question or challenge the decision by Mr Speaker on this matter. I intend now to make progress with the business.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	National Insurance Contributions Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary Vince Cable, Mr Secretary Duncan Smith, Mr Mark Prisk, Mr Mark Hoban, Mr David Gauke and Justine Greening, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with increasing rates of national insurance contributions and a regional secondary Class 1 contributions holiday for new businesses.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 79) with explanatory notes (Bill 79-EN).

Backbench Business
	 — 
	[5th Allotted Day]
	 — 
	Contaminated Blood and Blood Products

Dawn Primarolo: As Members will have noticed-I shall remind the House again-Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment.

Geoffrey Robinson: I beg to move,
	That this House recalls that the catastrophic problems of infected blood supplied by the NHS date back to the 1970s and 1980s, infecting 4,670 patients and causing what Lord Winston described as the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS; notes that successive administrations only very partially responded to this catastrophe by setting up and funding the MacFarlane Trust, the Skipton Fund and the Eileen Trust; regrets the past refusal to accept the principal recommendation of the Independent Public Inquiry into the supply of contaminated NHS blood to haemophilia patients, chaired by Lord Archer and established and financed by private initiative and funds, relating to compensation for the victims and set out in paragraph 6(h) of chapter 12 of the Archer Report; further notes that earlier this year the reasons for rejecting this recommendation were challenged successfully in the High Court, which quashed the decision; believes that this ruling constitutes an appropriate moment for the present Government, which bears no responsibility for the inadequate and misjudged policies of successive previous administrations, to extend an apology to the surviving 2,700 sufferers, their families and the bereaved; and calls on the Government to alleviate their intense hardship and suffering by accepting and implementing the recommendations of the Archer Report despite the intense financial pressure on the public purse at this time.
	I would like to say a few things by way of preliminary background to this debate, some of which may reflect on the interchanges we have just had on the amendment. Opposition Back-Bench Members, and many Government Members, are pleased that the whole idea behind the initiative on Back-Bench business and the excellent Committee established to promote it is that Back-Bench Members should have the ability to move substantive motions on the Floor of the House on which they can vote. That is what, in effect, we have secured today. Not only would the amendment, had it been chosen, have wrecked the whole substance and heart of the motion, but it would have wrecked the intention behind the Backbench Business Committee.
	I thank the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), both of whom were good enough, in their wisdom, to select the bid made initially by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), who, of course, is now a member of the shadow Government, and is therefore unable to move the motion today. He has kindly asked me to pick up the baton, which I am honoured to do, and we therefore have the opportunity today to debate a substantive motion on the Floor of the House.
	The Government have missed a huge opportunity. In drafting the motion, I placed great emphasis on making it an all-party motion reflecting the views of every Member of the House in a balanced way, and it has commanded the support of the victims of what was the "worst treatment disaster"-as it was described by Lord Winston, whose mother was, I think, terribly hurt in this way-in the history of the NHS. As the motion makes clear, the coalition Government bear no responsibility for the maladministration, the misjudgment and the inadequate judgments of previous Administrations.

Jim Cunningham: Does that not make it more significant that the Government, who had no responsibility for this situation, tried to move a wrecking amendment that would have totally sabotaged what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve on behalf of the people concerned?

Geoffrey Robinson: My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. I am very pleased to welcome the Secretary of State to the debate, because it gives it prominence and substance. The Backbench Business Committee has a real role to play-we have had a good debate on Afghanistan too. However, I saw the Secretary of State shake his head to say that the amendment is not a wrecking amendment. None the less, those of us who attended a meeting yesterday with the victims of blood contamination were hoping for an amendment that we could support, and he could have done something about that.
	The Secretary of State bears no responsibility for what has happened. The NHS supplied contaminated blood. I will not go into individual cases, except for one in my own constituency, which I have been following ever since the victim first approached me many years ago. This goes back to the mid-1970s, to the Callaghan and Wilson Labour Governments and to the Thatcher Government, and, of course, to the subsequent response to those ill-advised, inadequate judgments, made mostly by officials or under their strong advice-clearly that is the case in these cases-from the last Government principally, although it even pre-dates them to some extent. We are not trying to blame the present coalition Government, but there are things that they could have done, the cost of which would have fallen well short of the £3 billion which will allegedly be the cost of implementing the Archer report.
	As hon. Members will recall, the Archer report was set up under the Blair Government-in 1997-98, I think-at which time I was at the Treasury. People put it to me, "You were at the Treasury at the time. Why didn't you do something?" We did not have the report then. We had made papers available. It was a privately funded and excellent report, which I commend to all Members, but we did not know what it was going to recommend. Unfortunately, I left the Treasury before I was confronted with the implications of the report. However, under the last two Labour Administrations, there were ample opportunities for us to respond more fully, generously and comprehensively, in human terms, to the suffering of the victims.
	This was an unparalleled disaster in NHS treatment history involving thoroughly blameless individuals. I met one yesterday-a gentleman from Doncaster-who had been knifed, rushed to the accident and emergency department at Rotherham and given two pints of blood, from which he subsequently contracted HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C. He is now totally incapacitated, and has been asked to live, after capital payments of £25,000-of great value, of course, but not enormous-on £107 a week.
	The Government could have said, "Well, we know there is a problem with, for example, the Skipton Fund, so we will take some steps to move that up towards the level of what the previous Administration made available-inadequate though it was-in respect of HIV/AIDS."

Charlotte Leslie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Robinson: In a moment, yes.
	The Government could have done that, but they did not. All we now have is their sad, tragic adoption of what previous Government's did. That is a great pity, a great sadness, and does not reflect well on them. When they reflect on the matter, they will come to think that they should have handled the matter very differently.
	Had the Government proposed what I have suggested, which would have cost a minimum amount-nothing like the sums talked about now-we could have voted for it and then, at 4.30 pm, when this debate ends, gone back to meet the victims in Committee Room 14 and told them that this Government have finally broken with the previous, inadequate and ill-judged consensus and reaction. We have never asked them to take responsibility. However, they could also have extended a gesture of an apology, which the victims are also looking for. Sadly, however, the Government have, in effect, done nothing but take on the same old weary mantle that we have seen for the last 20 years. They are already getting tired: they have lost their verve and the ability to respond energetically and imaginatively to situations. It is very sad.

Robert Syms: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Robinson: I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) first.

Charlotte Leslie: I appreciate the tone, spirit and intended outcome of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. As a newcomer to the House, however, may I ask what, over the past 13 years, he did to encourage the previous Government to deliver payments I believe should have been made? At that time, the public finances were not in such a diabolical state and compensation would have been much easier to give.

Geoffrey Robinson: Unfortunately, the hon. Lady is trying to inject a party position into this debate, which those of us who have been involved in it have tried to exclude from it. We have said that past responses were inadequate and ill-judged-it says that in the motion. I regret that we did not deal with the matter, and I like to think that had I remained at the Treasury, I could have done something. I am open about that too; we all ought to be open here. However, those who say that I, as a former Treasury Minister, should appreciate our legacy are missing the central point: there will never be a good time to do something like this. There will always be bureaucratic arguments, and precedent arguments, and arguments we cannot foresee now but which will one day be made, for why we should do nothing, and the Government have caved into them. That is the reality.

Lorraine Fullbrook: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that this is a horrendously tragic occurrence. Many haemophiliacs have been affected by this as well, both mentally and physically, and we need to work together and all recognise the dreadful situation that these people find themselves in.

Geoffrey Robinson: I am pleased that the hon. Lady has joined the debate and agrees with us. Of course, haemophiliacs have also been affected. The ironic tragedy there is that the treatments given were meant to deal with the basic underlying condition of the haemophilia. I will mention the name of one victim, given that he is a constituent of mine-I am sure that many other Members will mention constituents of theirs too. Given that 4,670 initial cases were affected, and given that there are 650 constituencies, nearly every constituency must have had at least one tragic occurrence. I will therefore mention Joseph Peaty. He is a haemophiliac who went for treatment to correct his underlying condition, but because of the contaminated blood products, he acquired both HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C. He is watching this debate and looking for us to offer victims something more. There is no way we could accept the amendment.

Madeleine Moon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real tragedy, especially for haemophiliacs, is that it is not just individuals who are affected, but whole families? The condition runs in the family, so two or three family members could be affected. The fact that people are living with such stress as a result of failure of successive Governments to tackle the issue is something that this House should totally condemn. We must take a decision today, and not allow the issue to slip further down the agenda.

Geoffrey Robinson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who makes a most poignant and correct intervention, if I may say so. We had a unique opportunity. The issue had moved right up in the public's awareness. The sort of thing that we get in these debates is everybody saying how terrible it is, but then heaving a sigh of relief that they have not been affected, and on we go. The months and years drag by, and so the number comes down, from 4,600 to 2,700. Perhaps not many will be affected, but as my hon. Friend said, the nature of the diseases is that they spread, and the suffering will continue long after most of us have left this House.

Robert Flello: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. At the end of the 1980s, I worked with someone called Colin, who had been injured abroad, had a blood transfusion and got haemophilia. He then returned to the UK for ongoing treatment, but ended up getting contaminated blood and dying from HIV at the beginning of the 1990s. It is for people such as Colin that we are here today. This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue that we should have dealt with in the past 13 years-it should have been dealt with before that-but let us deal with it now.

Geoffrey Robinson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, which I wholly accept and entirely agree with.

Robert Syms: rose-

George Howarth: rose-

Geoffrey Robinson: The hon. Gentleman has been very persistent, so I will give way to him and then to my right hon. Friend, but if the House will forgive me, thereafter I want to get on, because we have limited time and I have agreed to keep my opening remarks to the minimum

Robert Syms: This is an important issue for so many families and people affected. I am not sure whether the motion will be agreed to today-that depends on the vote a little later-but the important thing is to make progress. The Government have said in their statement that they will undertake a review of the Archer report, which is good. However, we ought to be pressing them a little further, so that hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman and I can be part of that review, lobbying Ministers and having meetings with them. Should he not be suggesting to those on the Treasury Bench that some of us ought to be in the Department of Health discussing the matter further?

Geoffrey Robinson: I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and respond to both questions immediately afterwards.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and congratulate him on the measured way in which he is conducting this debate. Does he agree that in every generation there are two or three major injustices that have to be addressed? They cannot always be pinned on to a given Government, but this issue is one of those injustices, and we have to put it right now.

Geoffrey Robinson: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend-this is indeed a good moment to do that-but sadly I disagree with the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), because we have had reviews.
	In passing, let me make a positive reference to a former colleague in the Government at the time. As I understand it, the previous Secretary of State for Health-my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham)-opened up one aspect of the issue, through the Skipton Fund in particular, although if I am wrong and the Minister wants to correct me, I should be only too happy to take an interjection from her. He did that last year to see whether there was any way of increasing Skipton to the levels of HIV/AIDS compensation-that proposal was put to me forcefully at meetings with the victims yesterday, and I am sure that it will be again when we meet them at 4.30 pm today. If we could do that, it would be a step forward and we would feel that we were going in the right direction. If the Minister wants to tell me that that is the case, I would be very pleased to hear that.

Anne Milton: I have to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has read the written ministerial statement, because at the end it points out that we will be reviewing certain aspects.

Geoffrey Robinson: That is my whole point: "We will be reviewing." This has been going on for a year already. Who can put his hand on his heart and honestly say that anything more will come out of the review than we have already had? Nobody with any experience of this House or how Government works can say that. Today is the moment.

Anne Milton: I have to ask again whether the hon. Gentleman has read the written ministerial statement. I have said that I will look at certain aspects and I will report by Christmas, because I am acutely aware that campaigners on the issue have been left hanging for far too long.

Geoffrey Robinson: Very good, but let me say this to the Minister, who is obviously genuinely concerned about the issue, as all Ministers have been. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley said, there are always two or three big issues, and this is certainly one of them, so we wait to hear.  [ Interruption. ] The Minister should not tell us that we have not read the statement; we spent all yesterday trying to get a copy of the amendment, which seemed to be in the ether somewhere. Indeed, I asked her to e-mail me a copy yesterday at about 6 pm, but we could not see it even then. I have referred to the statement, which I think is useless, but why is it not referred to in the wording that is before the House? She did not want it there because it would carry more weight.

Steve Brine: If the hon. Gentleman has read the ministerial statement, before coming here and pouring scorn on the Front Bench, can he say which of the recommendations in the statement he agrees with?

Geoffrey Robinson: I am not terribly interested in a statement in the Commons Library; I am interested in what is said- [ Interruption. ] I will tell hon. Members why: we have been through that already. It was clear what was said at questions- [ Interruption. ] I am amazed that hon. Members can behave like that. Do they not realise that it is what is said at the Dispatch Box that counts, and that what counts is what the Government are prepared to do? We have had umpteen statements about reviews, and so have the victims. I invite the hon. Gentleman and the Minister to join me immediately after this debate, at 4.30 pm, in Committee Room 14 to meet the victims and see what reaction they get. Let us just see. Let him wave his hands at them and say, "We're going to review this." The victims want closure. They are fed up: they have been sentenced to long, lingering and wretched death sentences by successive Administrations.
	This Government had an opportunity to make a new start and bring closure to this great human tragedy, but they have refused to do so. For that reason, we are very pleased indeed-I am particularly pleased, as the mover of the motion-that Mr Speaker has called the motion and that we can vote on it. I urge Government Members to vote with us, in an attempt to shame all those, in all parts of the House, who have had sufferers in their constituencies, yet will not stand with us in this important Division. We will therefore move the motion to a vote in due course, and I hope that all Members present will vote for it.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Dawn Primarolo: Order. May I remind hon. Members that Mr Speaker has set a time limit on speeches of five minutes? That does not mean that every Member has to take all their five minutes. Some 24 or more Members wish to participate in this important debate, so I ask you all to help your colleagues out by making your points succinctly, so that we can get in as many speakers as possible.

Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that if Members take interventions during those five minutes, they will be given penalty time?

Dawn Primarolo: I can confirm that the normal procedure for interventions and compensation time apply to those five minutes. I hope that that is clear.

Stephen Dorrell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) on bringing this important, sensitive and emotive issue before the House. I congratulate him also on the tone-until perhaps the last couple of minutes of his speech-in which he moved the motion. He was absolutely right that this is not a question of the coalition defending its record; it is a question of the hon. Gentleman bringing a substantive proposition before the House for it to decide on.
	In those circumstances,I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman and the House that it is more than usually important that Members who vote on the motion understand precisely what its implications are. He had a lot to say-all of which I agree with-about the human tragedy, the system failure and the slow response of successive Governments over 25 years. That is not in dispute. Sadly, however, I shall not be supporting the hon. Gentleman in the Lobby, because of the part of the motion that says that this House
	"regrets the past refusal to accept the principal recommendation of the Independent Public Inquiry...relating to compensation for the victims and set out in paragraph 6(h)...of the"
	inquiry report.
	What the hon. Gentleman describes as the "principal recommendation" of the report is at the heart of the motion. The House must therefore understand precisely what that recommendation says, which is:
	"We suggest that payments should be at least the equivalent of those payable under the Scheme which applies at any time in Ireland."
	Let us be clear what has actually happened in the evolution of policy on this subject. The previous Government accepted many of the other recommendations in the Archer report, but they explicitly refused to accept the recommendation that the compensation payments should be aligned with at least the level payable in Ireland. We are advised by the Government that payments at such a level would cost the Treasury about £3 billion. There is no controversy around the history of these matters or the emotion involved, or about how we got to where we are, but the House is being asked to accept that we should commit the Government to spending £3 billion on aligning our compensation payments with those currently payable in Ireland.

Geoffrey Robinson: We set out the motion in those terms because that was very much what the victims wanted. However, the Government had the opportunity to respond with a constructive amendment, rather than a wrecking amendment that has no substance and takes not a single step towards our aims, even in relation to the Skipton Fund. We cannot accept that. We wanted a good amendment that we could vote for and unite around, so that the motion could have stood, as amended, in a progressive way that would have allowed us to step forward. Because the Government did not give us such an amendment, however, we are back where we were. We could not, in all honesty, let the victims down, which is why I was forced to move the motion as it stands.

Stephen Dorrell: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is not for me to comment on the way in which the negotiations between him and the Government proceeded, but unfortunately, that is not the question on which the House is being asked to decide. I return to the proposition that today is different from normal political days in the House, because the House is being asked to make a decision. It is being asked to decide whether the Government should be committed to align compensation payments with those currently payable in Ireland, and I do not agree with that proposition. I shall vote against it-albeit with a heavy heart, because I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the context and the history of these matters. The motion is not about the context and the history, however; it is about what happens next. In the week before the comprehensive spending review, it would not be sensible to agree to the commitment of £3 billion to align our arrangements with those in Ireland.

Alun Michael: Does the right hon. Gentleman, with all his ministerial experience, accept that the House-individual Back Benchers and Ministers-is being asked to consider the human impact and the ways in which that can be alleviated? Individuals and families have been devastated by the impact of contaminated blood-not only the medical impact but the social impact and the undermining of family confidence. Can we focus on that in coming to a decision in the debate?

Stephen Dorrell: I absolutely agree with a huge amount of what the right hon. Gentleman says. That is why I believe that the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Minister offers a sensible way forward. I said earlier that I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Coventry North West said, until he got to the last couple of minutes of his speech, when the Minister asked him whether he was prepared to sign up to the terms of reference of what the Government propose to do if, as I hope, the House rejects his motion. The Government are proposing to set up not a committee to think about this matter in the abstract, but a specific inquiry to report before the end of the year. The inquiry will review
	"the level of ex gratia payments made to those affected by hepatitis C"
	and-this will answer the point raised earlier-take into account the comparison with ex-gratia payments made in the UK to those infected with HIV. It will also review
	"the mechanisms by which all ex-gratia payments are made",
	which was a specific recommendation in the Archer report. It will consider the provision for insurance-which has also been widely discussed in this context-and the issue of prescription charging, which Archer also recommended. It will also review the provision of and access to
	"nursing and other care services in the community"
	for those affected.
	I assume that Government are not asking the House to reject the motion and simply carry on as though nothing had happened; I certainly will not do so. We all accept the context, but I would ask the House to consider carefully whether, instead of committing £3 billion to aligning our payments with those of Ireland, a better proposal would be to set up the review that the Minister recommends in her written statement, with the terms of reference that I have just outlined, in order better to meet the pressures that the hon. Member for Coventry North West rightly says are a human tragedy to which the House should respond.

Tom Clarke: I have a great regard for the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), but if there had been an alternative to the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), that would have been helpful to us in the debate.

Geoffrey Robinson: On that point, if the Government intend to do what they have outlined in their written statement, why did they not table an amendment to that effect? Why did they squirrel the information away in a statement in the Library? The right hon. Member for Charnwood is long enough in the tooth to know that they have not deliberately done it like this, but had they tabled such an amendment, incorporating their statement, we would have been very inclined to vote for it-

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Interventions must be interventions; the hon. Gentleman must not make another speech.

Tom Clarke: I feel that there ought to be more humility on both sides of the House as we debate this matter, and I hope that I shall be able to exercise some myself. This issue has not been properly dealt with by Governments of all shades for a quarter of a century. It is amazing, but this is our first debate on the subject in a quarter of a century. I welcome the debate, and as the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West is the only practical proposal before the House, I shall take pride in voting for it. I have held a number of responsibilities myself, including that of shadow spokesperson on disability. The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) asked earlier what had been done so far, and the answer is: not enough.

Andrew Turner: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this Government came into office only about five months ago, and that they are trying to get a lot of things sorted out? I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman, but I am trying to explain what is happening. To wait for two or three months longer for this important decision is a small price to pay, and I do not understand why he and the hon. Member for Coventry North West are worried about waiting for three months, because that is the difference between the proposal in the motion and what the Government are proposing.

Tom Clarke: Indeed, a lot of people in the Haemophilia Society and other supporters of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West are genuinely looking forward to what the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) is going to offer them before Christmas.
	That said, I want to go on to talk about one of my constituents, with whom I had a discussion yesterday. The House has to accept its responsibilities on these matters, including its responsibilities for delay after delay, even though evidence has been available. We have not given a response to the people who are suffering very gravely. We are talking about a number of people dying, families bereft of their members and the impact of not having acted previously. There is the issue of not having proper regard to the blood we are using. Then there is the use of American blood from we know not where, and now the decision taken not to use UK blood because we think there might be an element leading to new variant CJD. Frankly, a degree of incompetence is evident, which people interested in our debate will find hugely unacceptable.

Diane Abbott: My right hon. Friend talked about American blood from we know not where. The tragedy is that we do know where much of it came from. It was from paid donors, many of whom were prisoners and drug addicts, leading to consequences about which we all now know.

Tom Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention.
	The kind of information that we have-and we have had interventions year after year-in terms of giving us the facts and the evidence, quite apart from what our constituents are drawing to our attention, was embraced in Lord Archer's report, to which the motion refers. That report, which I very much welcome, led to Lord Morris of Manchester-both our noble Friends have done a commendable job in bringing these issues to our attention-attempting to deal with the problem through legislation. A Bill came to this House at the beginning of this year, but where did it go? Nowhere.
	That brings me to what this issue means for our constituents. I spoke yesterday to a man in my constituency-I will not name him-who is now 36. He described the bizarre experiences of his case. He talked about the secrecy surrounding these matters. The excellent Yorkhill hospital in Glasgow has a very good reputation, but a large number of papers pertaining to it have simply gone missing. My constituent talked about the stigma of having hepatitis C; he had been told for many years that he did not have hepatitis A or B, and was lucky not to have AIDS. His doctor withheld information on his particular case for more than a year. He told me only yesterday what the real problems were-for example, the difficulty of getting life insurance and a mortgage for himself and his partner.

Nia Griffith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Tom Clarke: I am sorry, I do not have time.
	My constituent also talked about the increased premium he faced in getting travel insurance. People are clearly being penalised again and again because they had the misfortune to find themselves with this condition of haemophilia and then found, as they approached the national health service, that their condition was made unacceptably worse. I want to thank the organisations that have helped. With particular reference to Scotland, I want to thank Mr Philip Nolan, who spent several hours with my constituent and me, and who, it seems to me, has been in London almost every week for years, preaching to us the necessity to act.
	My constituent referred yesterday to the position in Northern Ireland. I do not want to open up yet another party political debate, but the truth of the matter is that even with its economic difficulties, Ireland-if I said Northern Ireland yesterday, I should have said Ireland-has not abandoned its scheme.

David Davis: rose-

Tom Clarke: I am sorry, but I do not have enough time to give way.
	If the scheme means getting earlier acceptance on to the waiting list and getting problems recognised, and if our constituents should not be doubly penalised for something that is not their fault, I am with my constituent in saying that justice delayed is justice denied-and we have denied justice for far too long. Today provides us with an opportunity to put that right.

Jennifer Willott: It is good to have this debate today on an issue that I worked on throughout the last Parliament. Last year we managed to secure an Adjournment debate on the subject in Westminster Hall, but we have sought a debate in this Chamber for a very long time. I believe that the last debate on this issue was in 1990, and much has changed since then. A great deal has already been said about the figures. The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) talked about how many people have been affected: 1,200 infected with HIV, 4,670 infected with hepatitis C, and so far more than 1,800 people have died.
	I got involved because of the human side to the issue, and I would like to pay tribute to my constituent, Haydn Lewis, an absolute stalwart of the campaign. He was one those infected, and he had hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV, and was lately told that he was potentially exposed to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease as a result of the contaminated blood products that he had been given. He finally developed liver cancer because of the hepatitis C, and tragically, he died this summer, after spending 20-odd years campaigning on behalf of the people who had been infected. He was a superb campaigner. He galvanised people across the country. He came to the most recent lobby earlier this year, even though he was extremely ill. He also did a huge amount of research into what happened in the '70s and the '80s. He came to see me almost as soon as I was elected to try to get me involved in the campaign.
	As has already been said, it should be made clear that this is not a party political issue. This has happened under Governments of all colours and all Governments did something, but in my opinion we still have a long way to go. I am really glad that the Government have announced their intention to review some of Archer's recommendations. That is good news.

Adam Afriyie: My constituent Sarah Vergopoulos came to see me when her brother died because of infected blood just last year. She was most concerned to ensure that something would actually happen as a result of this debate. It seems to me that this debate-I commend the Backbench Business Committee on it-has already been a success, because something has already happened. The review has been announced and a timeline has been given to ensure that something will come forward this side of Christmas. I can thus report back to my constituent that just by holding this debate, something has already moved, which might not have moved without it.

Jennifer Willott: The hon. Gentleman is correct. This debate on the Floor of the House is something that many of those affected have called for for a number of years. For them, it is important that that has been recognised and that Ministers are now listening to Members of all parties expressing their views.

David Davis: Like the hon. Lady, I would have liked the debate to be less partisan than it has been so far. Her example highlights what a tragedy this has been and what an injustice has been committed. Although we are in the midst of a massive financial crisis, we should all recognise that tragedies and injustices like this deserve priority in spending terms over everything else.

Jennifer Willott: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I am disappointed that, as was announced in the statement earlier today, not all the recommendations will be reviewed.

Robert Smith: Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact-I hope that the Minister will expand on it-that the issue of compensation for the hepatitis C victims will be addressed, as that seems to be a very important part of the case?

Jennifer Willott: Indeed, and I was just coming to that point. As Members will be aware, the previous Government lost a judicial review in April when Lord Archer's recommendations for increasing compensation in line with payments in Ireland seemed to be rejected out of hand. My concern is that today's statement appears to do something similar, so I am somewhat disappointed at the wording of it.

Nia Griffith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jennifer Willott: I will, but for the final time.

Nia Griffith: I commend the hon. Lady for the excellent work she has done, including the Adjournment debate that she mentioned, which I too attended. I also commend her for lobbying Ministers. Does she agree that what she really wants is some firm commitment from the Government Front-Bench team-something concrete that she can go home with, rather than having to push things back again and again, as has happened in the past?

Jennifer Willott: The fact that we have a deadline of Christmas for the report is very helpful. That is not too far away, and a concrete date has been specified. I hope that the Minister will ensure that we get the response by that time, and that if given the chance later, she will speak further on that subject.
	The time that this process is taking is clearly a major issue. Given that it has taken more than 20 years even to hold an inquiry, the least the victims deserve is for the recommendations to be considered seriously, even those that would be expensive to implement. Lord Archer made a number of sensible and important recommendations, and although many have been implemented, a number still need to be acted on. Some would be expensive to implement, but others would not. Improved compensation is clearly the most controversial, and I appreciate that in the current financial climate the Government will find it hard to deal with, but, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), other issues, too, have not been considered properly so far. For instance, patients with hepatitis C are treated differently from, and worse than, those with HIV. That simply is not fair. The widows of those who died before August 2003 receive nothing, and that is not fair either. Those who are infected cannot obtain insurance, which has massive implications for their lives.

Gordon Marsden: The hon. Lady has been very generous in giving way. I do not wish to be partisan, but do not some elements of the statement give us pause? It refers to access to insurance. "Access" is a very vague word. It is not just a question of access; as constituents have pointed out to me, it is a question of provision as well. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need to be much clearer about that in the terms of reference?

Jennifer Willott: I hope that they are clear about it both in the terms of reference and in the final review and announcement. Although the issue is not particularly glamorous, and is fairly complicated and difficult for people to understand, it has massive implications for day-to-day life, and it really does need to be dealt with sooner rather than later.
	The victims of the tragedy were infected more than 20 years ago. This has gone on for a very long time. Year by year we are losing those victims: people such as Haydn are, tragically, passing away each year. We cannot let this drag on any longer. Being a politician is about standing up and representing people who cannot represent themselves. Haydn can no longer represent himself, and many other people who are affected by this are no longer able to speak for themselves. It is our job to stand up and do the right thing, and I hope very much that we can do that today.

Paul Goggins: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), both for her work and for her speech, and I join my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) in paying tribute to Lord Archer for his report-and also to Lord Morris of Manchester, who was my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Manchester, Wythenshawe, and has done so much work on this and many other issues.
	Much of my understanding of this issue comes from the experience of three of my constituents: Peter Mossman, Fred Bates and Fred's wife Eleanor. I pay tribute to their resilience and determination. Peter discovered that he was a mild haemophiliac in 1976. One day in 1985 he came home from work with bruising on his leg. He went to hospital, where he was treated with contaminated blood and infected with hepatitis C. What resulted immediately was a desperate illness followed by, in the longer term, worsening bleeds and severe liver damage.
	Fred was also a mild haemophiliac, although his condition is now severe. He has never been able to identify precisely when he became infected with hepatitis C, although it is certain that, although tests were carried out throughout the 1980s that would have confirmed his condition, he was never told. Only after the chance reading of a leaflet in 1993 did he ask whether he was infected, and he was finally told the truth. He was then told to go home, and that there was nothing to worry about. Life for Fred means often feeling extremely cold. He suffers from severe bleeding, and now has sclerosis of the liver. For Eleanor, life means not only supporting Fred and enduring severe financial hardship, but having to live for years unaware of the risks that she faced to her own health because Fred had never been told the truth about his condition.
	What Peter, Fred and Eleanor find hardest to bear is covered in chapter 7 of Lord Archer's report-namely that doctors knew about the risks involved in treating patients with blood products, but failed to inform them. There is no doubt that Fred and Peter, who were both mild haemophiliacs, would never have consented to treatment with contaminated blood products which carried a high risk of infection with HIV and hepatitis C. However, it is not only the doctors who failed to explain the dangers. It seems to me, and indeed to all of us, that the whole health system was caught up in what amounts to a conspiracy of silence.
	I have a copy of a letter dated 31 July 1981 from a member of staff in the Department of Health and Social Security to an official in the Treasury. The letter is headed "Blood products laboratory-redevelopment". It states, among other things, that
	"health authorities are obliged to supplement supplies from BPL with expensive and, because of the hepatitis risk, less safe imported commercial blood products at a cost of up to £10m annually."
	People at the top of the DHSS knew the risks, but patients were not informed, and four years after that letter was written, my constituent Peter Mossman was infected with hepatitis C.

Wayne David: Is my hon. Friend aware that it has been estimated that as many as 90% of haemophiliacs who were treated with blood in the 1970s and 1980s have at least one life-threatening disease?

Paul Goggins: I am aware of that. What I am trying to emphasise is that if my constituents, and indeed many others, had been given proper information, they would have been able to make a balanced decision about the risks that they faced.
	We all have constituents who will have their own stories, and as a result of the Archer report we now have a definite analysis of what went wrong. The great thing about the report, however, is that it points the way forward. It is now a case of what we can do to support those who survive in the circumstances in which they find themselves, and I believe that we need to do at least four things.
	First, there needs to be an apology. I know that some people feel that an apology is just words and is therefore meaningless, but in June this year the Prime Minister proved from the Dispatch Box that that is not the case when he gave an unequivocal apology to the families of Derry for what had occurred on 30 January 1972. That apology means a lot to those families, and it is enabling them to move forward. I believe that haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C and HIV deserve no less.
	Secondly, there must be proper financial recompense. There is a debate about that. Archer recommends equivalence with the Irish scheme, but the Government ruled that out today, and are to institute a review instead. Whatever the outcome of that review, it must be demonstrably fair to those who have been affected. There must be a level playing field between those infected with, respectively, hepatitis C and HIV. Thirdly, there must be no impact on benefit entitlement: any recompense must be over and above the benefit payments that people receive.

Charlotte Leslie: I want to pay tribute to my constituent Bob Purnell, who died, his son Edward, and his wife Gill. I also want to dispel any misunderstanding that there may have been about the debate's being partisan. I welcome it very much.
	I think we all appreciate that the Government are in a difficult position because of the financial situation. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we cannot make the payments that I think we would all like to make to victims who have suffered greatly, it might be possible to increase payments in future as the economic situation becomes more viable?

Paul Goggins: I am pleased that the hon. Lady has had an opportunity to mention and pay tribute to her constituent. There may be an argument for staging payments over time, but the Government must be clear about the award and the level of compensation at the outset.
	Finally, the whole social care and health system must become much more sensitive to the needs of those who were caught up in this tragedy. There must be more sympathetic treatment for those who have been infected and their carers.
	I regret the fact that we were not able to do more over the past 13 years to support and assist this particular group. I want to compliment the Minister, because I know from conversations that I have had and from things that I have read that she has gained a fair amount of confidence from those who were caught up in the tragedy, and from members of the haemophiliac community. My guess is that her experience of the health service, along with her own personal qualities, has led her to want to deal with the situation and, in her own words, to get closure before the end of the year. Let me say to her that having come so far so quickly, she now carries a huge burden of responsibility to ensure that the solution that she comes up with retains that confidence, and does not further dash the hopes of a community who have been so badly let down in the past.

Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) for securing this debate and all the Members who have spoken in it thus far. Many of them mentioned by name constituents who have suffered as a result of receiving contaminated blood products, but on Monday I received a visit from a constituent who specifically did not wish to be named because she still feels that she suffers a stigma as a result of having hepatitis C. She does not want it talked about and she is embarrassed, but it is not just she who suffers; so, too, does her son.
	There is never a good time to get a Government to commit to significant spending, but this is a new Parliament with a bright, shiny new Government and we should celebrate the fact that we finally have the opportunity to hold this debate on the Floor of the House of Commons some 20 years after the subject under discussion became an issue.
	Not many people in Romsey and Southampton North have been infected as a result of having received contaminated blood products, but a handful have, and it is tragic to hear some of them say that although they would like to be present today they do not feel they can afford the train fare to come to London. Indeed, even those who have travelled have welcomed the fact that the debate is being held in the afternoon so they do not have to pay peak-time train fares to attend it.
	I wish to make a specific point to the Minister, but let me first say that I welcome parts of the written statement, because elements of it represent progress, and the people in the Public Gallery who have travelled here today want to see progress on this issue. They do not want a partisan row to develop on the Floor of the House; they want us to make moves in the right direction.
	One constituent who came to see me made some points about insurance. She and her family find it difficult to enjoy a family holiday because it is hard for them to get travel insurance. There are similar difficulties with life insurance and mortgages, and therefore it can be hard for people to buy their own property and have the security that that provides. I therefore welcome the parts of the statement that make reference to insurance because it is important.
	The specific point I wish to make is about dentistry. It may not be particularly widely known that hepatitis C sufferers frequently have significant problems with gum disease. A constituent of mine therefore wanted to have easier access to NHS dentistry. I hope the Minister will take that point on board, and be prepared to make some sort of dentistry provision in future.
	My constituents are not greedy people. Both those who have travelled here today and those who have not have stressed to me that they wish there to be fair compensation, and that they wish to have help from this Government. They do not wish to apportion blame because there has not been any progress over the past 20 years. What they want is progress now.

Steve Rotheram: Appropriately, I am wearing a black tie today both to acknowledge the fact that many people have died because of contaminated blood products before they had the opportunity to see a full debate on the subject in this Chamber, and to pay respects to a constituent of mine, James McVey, who died tragically at the weekend at the age of just 18. His death is not related to this issue, but I am sure that all Members on both sides of the House would want to join me in sending our condolences to his family and friends.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for bringing this long-neglected issue firmly back on to the political agenda. It is to our great shame that it is necessary to have a debate on it so long after the original events, and it is an indictment of previous Administrations that many of the issues surrounding the contaminated blood disaster remain unresolved to this day.
	The case for making adequate reparations to the victims and their families has been eloquently made both today and on previous occasions in this House and in the other place. However, I have never heard a more stirring description of the tragedy and its effects on individual lives than the emotional personal account of one young gentleman in Committee Room 7 yesterday. His words will stay with me for a very long time.

David Davies: In common with many other speakers, the hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for compensation, and I think all Members have sympathy with that. However, given the pain being caused by the £1 billion saved by getting rid of child benefit for higher rate taxpayers, where does he think that £3 billion will come from? Does he have the courage to tell the House which budget we should cut to pay that compensation?

Steve Rotheram: I am being encouraged to make a party political point, but as my mum used to say, "Two wrongs don't make a right," and, believe me, if I were sitting on the Government Benches now I would be saying exactly the same thing. On this issue, it does not matter what political party we are in.
	The NHS failed almost 5,000 people. Through using contaminated blood and blood products, it made ill people more ill, sometimes fatally so. It made perfectly healthy individuals-accident victims requiring blood transfusions, for example-unwell for life. Indeed, as many have said this fiasco was, in Lord Winston's words,
	"the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS".
	The state should have gone out of its way decades ago to compensate victims financially and in kind, not only to accept responsibility, but proactively to alleviate the adverse impact of its mistakes. Instead, successive Governments have prevaricated; they have been reluctant to acknowledge fault and loth to carry the can financially.

Sajid Javid: Constituents of mine, such as a gentleman, whom I will not name, who contracted both HIV and hepatitis C at the age of five, have made it clear that they do not want Members to consider the issue on a party political basis, and I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is reflecting that wish in his tone. It is incumbent on every Member to put party politics aside and to do all we can to ensure that this matter is treated as a top priority, while also taking into account the constraints on the state.

Steve Rotheram: I absolutely agree, and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) agrees with our view as well. He said:
	"It really is time that as a Country, as a government (and forget whatever Party it is), we should now take responsibility for this. It's a completely shocking scandal."
	Let me tell Members about what happened to a constituent of mine, Mr Christopher Munn. In 1981, he was mugged and stabbed. He received a blood transfusion and contracted hepatitis C. For years, Mr Munn fought for recognition, support and compensation but, unable to afford legal representation, he found himself led a merry dance, and was swatted away like some bothersome pest. An initial application to the Skipton Fund was rejected but, thankfully, on appeal, some 25 years after being infected he was awarded a few thousand pounds. Now, £25,000 or £45,000 is no small sum, but if we do the maths it quickly becomes apparent how risible that amount actually is when spread over 25 years and more.
	This issue is largely about the money of course. Many victims, severely debilitated by conditions developed as a direct result of contaminated blood, have been struggling to meet their medical needs, let alone achieve a comfortable standard of living. However, the issue is also about the need for acknowledgement. Victims need the state to accept unreservedly and unconditionally its responsibility for their plight, and to meet its moral obligations. For the NHS and, by extension, the current Government to retain their integrity, they must make amends. To those who have challenged Labour Members with comments such as, "But what did your Government do about it?", my answer is very simple: not enough.

Penny Mordaunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steve Rotheram: No, as I am conscious of time.
	The bottom line is that successive Governments irrespective of their political persuasion hesitated over investing resources and setting precedents. They were all equally culpable in failing the victims, but rather than bang on about who did or did not do what and when, let us finally seize the opportunity to right a terrible wrong.
	I fully appreciate that money is tight, but morality is absolute, not some relative concept that expands and contracts to suit circumstances. We cannot as a society be more moral in good times than in bad. The Government have spoken about compassion and fairness and "the caring society". They have no option but to put their money where their mouth is in order to put right a decade-old wrong.

Rehman Chishti: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for tabling this motion, because it is vital that such important, tragic and sensitive issues get debated on the Floor of the House. I welcome the statement by the Minister, because over a number of years those affected by this problem have gone on a rollercoaster journey. That is because in recent years the Archer report has been published, the Government have taken a position and a judicial review has been undertaken, and now we have reached a point where a Government are saying, "Within five months a review will take place and within three months we will come back with a position." If that review can be carried out earlier than the end of the year, I ask the Minister to ensure that it is, because time is running out for some of the victims of this tragedy.
	I wish to discuss the case of the father of one of my constituents, who suffered from a rare form of haemophilia. In 1984, he cut his finger while working, was given factor VIII to clot the blood and, as a result, has suffered from HIV and hepatitis C. It was not until four years later, when different blood samples were taken away and different analysis was done, that he was told that he had hepatitis and HIV. He then had to tell his wife, but at that point he was not given any specific counselling-not only between 1984 and 1989, but to this very day, no specific counselling has been given to him, and that must urgently be reviewed.
	On the funding comparison with Ireland, from 1989 until today, this individual has received £78,000 in total compensation over a number of years, with £6,400 per rota. At one stage, after the Archer report, he was given £12,800. For the same period, someone in Ireland would have received a lump sum of £200,000. It is not the case that people simply want compensation; this is about the family. He feels that a lump sum gives security; if something happens he can leave some money for his family. He feels that if we cannot have comparability, he would very much appreciate having some measures that go towards it.

John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman mentions compensation and the difference between the situation in this country and that in Ireland-reference has been made to that several times. However, there is another huge difference: no UK Government have acknowledged negligence liability yet.

Rehman Chishti: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there is the question of liability, and I understand that it was dealt with at the judicial review, when the High Court addressed it. In Ireland, the issue of fault was raised.

Mark Durkan: The previous Government retold the fiction several times that the compensation scheme in Ireland rested on the finding of liability, but that scheme existed in Ireland before the finding of liability, be it by either the Finlay or Lindsay tribunals.

Rehman Chishti: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. The point that I was making about the Government and clarification related to the judicial review, which examined that very matter.
	The other point I wish to make has been touched on eloquently by other Members. Since 1989, this individual has not been able to go on holiday, because of problems with travel and life insurance. Those matters must be dealt with swiftly, given the length of time left for him to live, so that he can enjoy that time with his family. I welcome the fact that he can be here to sit in the Public Gallery in this House to hear this debate.
	Finally, I urge the Minister to provide specific counselling for those people who have suffered from this tragedy. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak and the Backbench Business Committee for bringing this motion to the Floor of the House.

Andy Slaughter: I wish to say a few words about my constituent, Andrew March, who is a victim of contaminated blood. He is not only a remarkable man and campaigner; he is the reason we are talking about this today, because he was the claimant in the judicial review that led to the written ministerial statement. That statement was correctly attacked by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) today.
	I am new to Mr March, in the sense that he has been a constituent of mine since May, as he lives in the Hammersmith and Fulham part of the constituency that I inherited. However, I have caught up quickly with what he has been doing over many years and decades. The easiest way for me to summarise his predicament and what he has done is to read from a letter that he sent to me on 23 July. He said:
	"I was one of the young children at the time of the AIDS outbreak, and I had to cope with being told that I had HIV at the age of 9. It was extremely difficult to deal with back then-and the devastation was compounded by the stigma. Before that, I had already been ill from Hepatitis B, again, from blood products because of my haemophilia condition. By 1992, whilst I was studying at the Royal College of Music on a 4-year degree, I was informed that I had also been exposed to hepatitis C, and only 5 years later, I was given another blow when I was informed that I had been exposed to two batches of Factor VIII blood products taken from a donor who later went on to develop vCJD. I had been treated with over 110 bottles of this vCJD-implicated material being injected directly into my bloodstream."

Lorraine Fullbrook: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this very debate helps to raise awareness of those people suffering from hepatitis C contracted from contaminated blood products and helps to remove the stigma attached to hepatitis C? I am thinking of people such as a constituent of mine, who wishes not to be named but is suffering from hepatitis C1a, which is the severest form of hepatitis.

Andy Slaughter: I think that this debate does do that, and I am grateful for this opportunity to increase my own knowledge. However, I think that we need to move on to some very specific recommendations because, as the mover of the motion eloquently said, this is a time for action more than contemplation. That is exactly what Mr March did when he brought the judicial review in April, and the matter has been just been clarified, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) described, in relation to the mistake that the previous Government made on the situation in Ireland. That was the error made by that Government. That was the finding of the judicial review, and it is what the Government are responding to today.
	I shall not read from the judicial review, other than to quote its final paragraphs, because they again relate to Mr March. The learned judge, Mr Justice Holman, said that counsel for the claimant
	"paid a warm but measured tribute to...Andrew March, 'for his tenacity and balance in the asking of questions and soliciting of information, and not taking no for an answer when the reasons are not good ones.' My impression is that that tribute is justified and well judged, and that the many other people interested in this cause owe gratitude to Mr March for his tenacity or persistence."
	I say again that Mr March has done that for many years, suffering as he did not only from his original medical condition but from the effects of the contamination.
	Taintedblood, an organisation that has done a lot of excellent work in briefing us all and preparing us for this debate, states:
	"The Under-Secretary of State for Health"-
	the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton)-
	"recently held a series of meetings with campaigners, the Haemophilia Society, the Macfarlane and Eileen Trusts, the Skipton Fund and others. In those meetings she demonstrated a new willingness by Government to face up to and deal with what has happened to the Haemophilia Community."
	Those organisations must be very disappointed today by the amendment that the Government attempted to move and by the written ministerial statement.
	I welcome what is said in the terms of reference about hepatitis C, as has been mentioned. I want to clarify whether the Minister is offering full parity for hepatitis C sufferers with what AIDS sufferers experience, including the £12,800 per annum payments, and that that will be susceptible to the review.

Marcus Jones: The constituent whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned is the son of one of my constituents in Nuneaton. I want to mention the families of those affected by this disaster, because they have also had to bear a real burden in supporting people such as Mr March over the years. Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the terms of reference that the Minister announced this morning with her statement about supporting the families who have had to bear that burden?

Andy Slaughter: No, I definitely do not. I ask the Minister to clarify-if not now, when she makes her speech-whether the terms of reference will allow hepatitis C sufferers to be treated at least as HIV/AIDS sufferers are under the current scheme. I hope that she will do that. However, all that could have been done today. The limited amount that is offered in the review could quite easily have been announced today. If there had to be a review, I should have liked it to have been along the terms of Lord Morris's Bill, which considered all the remaining provisions of the Archer inquiry and said specifically-this is the contentious part:
	"When making the regulations the Secretary of State shall have regard to any comparable compensation schemes offered in other countries."
	The noble Lord's Bill was a good Bill, but I would say-this is the only criticism that I would make of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West-that I think today's motion goes a little too far. It calls specifically for parity with the scheme in Ireland. I do not think that it gives the Government sufficient room. I would ask the Government-this is the commitment that I would look for today-to widen the terms of the review and to reconsider all the matters that Lord Archer raised, including compensation. Even if the conclusion is that parity with Ireland, where the situation is different even given the judicial review, is unlikely-that was suggested in the opening speeches-in the current financial climate we need to look at the levels of compensation that are being paid.
	I also think that the motion, while criticising previous Governments, could at least have acknowledged that the previous Government responded to the Archer review by making regular annual payments at a higher level, although I understand that my constituent and many others regard that as inadequate. I regard it as inadequate. We are looking, I think, for something between the two. The unfortunate thing about the Government response today is that it cuts off that option. The amendment and the ministerial statement do not allow the option of considering more generous compensation in the light of Lord Archer's proposals. That is why I would have voted against the amendment and that is why I think it is wrong for the Government to have given false hope to sufferers and to have dashed that hope with their announcement today.

Phillip Lee: I am the only regular practising medical doctor in this House and it is somewhat surprising that no one contacted me to lobby on behalf of any of the issues to do with this debate. I stand here as someone who has no idea whether I have any constituents affected by this dreadful scandal, but I do understand what it is like to have hepatitis C and to have HIV. On a personal level, I was once married to somebody who carried the gene for haemophilia, so I have considered the idea of bringing a haemophiliac into this world and the implications thereof. More importantly, I have spent weekends away with the Haemophilia Society in the past. I have been privy to the annoyance, upset, anger and frustration with this whole affair since it started to rear its ugly head in the late '70s.
	It is important when we are discussing this issue to try to separate emotion from fact. The fact of the matter is that before we could administer cryoprecipitate factor VIII, the life expectancy of haemophiliacs in this country was in the 20s. When we discuss compensation-perhaps this is a way of decoupling us from the compensation scheme in the Republic of Ireland-we need to discuss compensating people for loss of earnings and widows' pensions, instead of compensating people for loss of life. It is important that we distinguish between the two issues, instead of getting emotional. It is easy to stand up and discuss distressing cases, which is an approach that can be applied to an array of conditions. Let us concentrate on fact, because there may be an appropriate solution.
	I could speak all day on this issue, but I am conscious of time. Questions of morality and of cost arise in deciding appropriate compensation. To my mind, the present economic difficulties that our Government are dealing with are not a consideration. A big wrong occurred, and we need to deal with it irrespective of the timing. The former Member for Plymouth, Devonport, David Owen, who was a medically qualified person, was involved at the outset under a Labour Government. The subsequent Conservative Government continued to miss the signs and failed to implement necessary procedures to make sure that the blood was not contaminated.
	I want to draw attention to the figures. I have read only the first four chapters of the Archer report, because I realised only at 12.30 pm that the matter was going to be debated. I have noticed mistakes in the first four chapters, so I am not encouraged by the report in general. The report cites a figure of £3 billion, which I think the Department of Health provided to Ministers, but the figure is actually £1 billion. There is a typo-if one divides the two figures, one does not get £850,000; one gets £350,000. Let us talk about facts first, because we may be discussing £1 billion, not £3 billion. If one relates those calculations to the price of life, we can arrive at a compensation scheme that I can support.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying-I heard about this matter briefly before I came into the House-that the £3 billion figure relates to a typo and that the figure should be £300 million, because that needs to be clarified?

Phillip Lee: Yes. If one does the division, one realises that one figure must be wrong-off the top of my head, the figure is 853 as opposed to 353. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at that point.
	If the figure is £1 billion, we spend £1 billion on the NHS every three and a half days. We can find that money. I do not know how one prices a liver, and I do not know how one prices a liver transplant that does not happen. I cannot put a price on that, and I challenge anyone else to do so. We are talking about 4,670 people, so we can behave appropriately at last and provide the appropriate compensation.
	On the financial implications, HIV widows are forced through the Benefits Agency to seek work within weeks of their partner's death, and hepatitis C widows whose partners died before 2004 receive no financial help at all. The implications for the haemophilia community are stark. I cannot say that we should trim this and that because of the comprehensive spending review; I would rather we borrowed the £500 million and did the right thing.

Harriett Baldwin: Given my hon. Friend's medical background, will he explain whether it is appropriate for someone with hepatitis C to receive incapacity benefit?

Phillip Lee: I believe that it is, but, with respect, that is missing the point. As far as I am concerned, the Department of Health is culpable. This is not a party political matter; it is a departmental matter. It had a series of opportunities over a number of years to deal with the issue, but it missed them, and surprisingly it lost a few documents in the process. That is shocking. If the Department is worried about precedent, that makes me concerned about other conditions and treatments. Is there something else that we should know about? If this is about precedent, I should like to set one: this was wrong and we should pay out appropriately.

Diane Abbott: The hon. Gentleman has made a very important point about the £3 billion figure being a typographical error. I wonder whether Ministers are able to respond on that point now, as that would colour the rest of the debate.

Phillip Lee: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I should like to meet the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), to discuss this. I hope that she can give me a little time because I should like to discuss a series of issues with her.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am sorry, but the time limit has been reached.

Owen Smith: First, I join other right hon. and hon. Members in thanking the Backbench Business Committee for recognising the importance of the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) and I put to it. The volume and the quality of the contributions we have heard today bear eloquent testimony to the fact that the Business Committee was absolutely right to note that this is a critical issue-one that many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel has received too little attention in recent years from successive Governments. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West for picking up the baton and moving the motion, which he did with great aplomb and verve, as ever.
	Most of all, I should like to thank the victims and their families who have been in contact with me since we first learned that we had succeeded in securing this debate. Their kind words and support have been hugely welcome. I am delighted that so many of them managed to come here today-and, indeed, yesterday-to witness the debate. That bears extraordinarily powerful testament to the wrong that has been done to them and their families. I hope that we are doing some justice to their cases today by debating this issue so fully.
	I am extremely pleased that the debate has prompted the Government to put before the House today's statement, which is somewhat misaligned with the wrecking amendment, as my hon. Friend described it.

Geoffrey Robinson: I wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you could put the point to the Minister that we are conducting the debate on the basis of the ministerial statement that has been placed in the Library rather than one made to the House. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the basis of compensation would be if we were to implement the Archer recommendations. Is the figure £3 billion, £300 million or £1.2 billion? I have heard different figures. Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot continue the debate without more clarity about what we are considering? The Government have stated that we are inviting them to spend £3 billion, but the figure might in fact be far less.

Owen Smith: I, too, would very much like that point to be addressed. I was going to ask the Minister how the £3 billion figure was calculated. The Haemophilia Society has today suggested that the figure has been calculated erroneously on the basis of a typographical error in the Archer report and that the number has been extrapolated from a false figure that Archer published regarding the volumes that were given in Ireland. So, I, too, would welcome the Minister's clarification on that hugely important point.

Stephen Dorrell: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that the number of pounds we are talking about is, to put it mildly, salient. However, is it not also relevant that the House is being asked to sign up not to a specific sum but to the principle that the compensation payable in this country should be at least aligned with that payable in the Republic of Ireland? Whatever the number, the House should not sign up to the dubious principle that whatever is paid in Ireland we will pay here.

Owen Smith: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, which is a good one intellectually, but the rationale for the recommendation's inclusion in the motion was, essentially, that the victims of this tragedy wanted the House to debate it. The Archer report is the only substantive inquiry that we have had. It came to that conclusion on compensation, so we felt it appropriate to ask that question of the House. However, I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point about tying ourselves to recommendations that are made in another jurisdiction.

Alun Cairns: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for pressing for the motion today. I am obviously keen to support him. On the debate about parity with the Republic of Ireland, the Minister in her statement talked about working with the UK's devolved Administrations and with their Health Ministers. Does the hon. Gentleman also support the need for parity within the UK? Will he urge the Minister before us and the Minister in Wales, because we are both Welsh Members, to work on the review with the Department of Health in order to come up with at least some parity within the UK?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It is up to Members to decide on the number of times that they give way to interventions, but I am concerned that that is going to stop other Members getting in. If we are going to have interventions, Mr Cairns, we need to make them very brief.

Owen Smith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's excellent point. One thing that I was slightly disappointed about in the ministerial statement was the fact that those discussions clearly have not taken place. Some of the statement's specifics are very welcome, particularly its point about the terms of reference and, notably, the fact that the level of payment to people with hepatitis C might be equalised.

Diane Abbott: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that "Mr Secretary Lansley" and "Anne Milton" tabled an amendment that is on the Order Paper and includes the figure "£3 billion". Some Opposition Members feel that this debate cannot go forward until we have some clarification of its accuracy.

Lindsay Hoyle: A point of order takes up valuable time, too. I recognise that you wanted to make it, but you will have the opportunity to put the case a little later. What we ought to try to do is respect all Members. I want to try to get in all those Members who are here; I do not want disappoint them.

Owen Smith: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I now have very little time left, so I shall speak a little faster, if I may.
	It is absolutely critical that the Minister makes it very clear in her response that she is talking about equalising the payment to people with hepatitis C with the previous payments to victims of HIV. It is also important that she consider the specificity of the recommendations, including the terms of reference. Victims' access to nursing care and to the NHS ought to be looked at differentially. They were infected by the NHS, in effect, and therefore they ought to be treated differently when looked after by the NHS.
	In the last minute of my speech, I want to pay tribute to some people in the Public Gallery today. The reason I am so interested in today's debate is that a very brave constituent of mine, Leigh Sugar, died earlier this year. His family came to see me just days after his death to express their desire for him to be the last person who suffers in their dying days, having not been looked after properly by the NHS, and having been infected through NHS treatment.
	Leigh is a classic example of a person who, as a mild haemophiliac, went to hospital-he, in his teens-to be treated for the condition and came out with a devastating disease. That disease ultimately led to his death from liver cancer. Far too many people have died before we have seen this House deliver justice, and it is absolutely critical that justice be seen to be done today. This is a moral issue, it is a matter of conscience and of justice, and we owe it to the victims, whatever the difficulties of the CSR, to see justice served so that they might be properly recognised and properly recompensed.

Nadine Dorries: I welcome the Government's intention to review the Archer report, for this simple reason: its last recommendation, which to many sufferers was the most important, was to review the nursing, caring and other services that are available. This debate has been very much focused on money, but regardless of whether the figures are correct, the problems that many sufferers have had to experience throughout their lives, from the moment of infection, have been compounded by the years in which they have had to deal with these problems alone.
	I would like to give the House a couple of examples, because I do not think that any of us, although we speak here on behalf of our constituents, can fully understand some of the problems that these people have had to deal with. I would like to speak on behalf of a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and a constituent of my own, and cite some of the things that they have told us. What they said to us is powerful, and we must recognise the bravery that it takes for people to go and sit in front of their MP and talk about the problems that they experience, which is not an easy thing to do. Some of those constituents are here today.
	My constituent was infected with HIV from contaminated blood at the age of 12, when he was told: "This is what you now have. You must never tell anybody at all, ever. You must never tell friends in school, because if you do you will be bullied and hounded out of your school, and we will be hounded out of our home and have to move away." It is enough to have suffered with haemophilia, but then, at the age of 12, they are told not only that they have a socially unacceptable disease, as it was at that time, but, at an age when they fully understand, that they are soon going to die from it.
	He got that message more powerfully than by words alone. As a haemophiliac before his diagnosis of HIV, he was never allowed to have a bike of his own, so he was always asking to hitch a ride on somebody else's. The Christmas after his diagnosis, his Christmas present was a bike of his own. He knew, from the statements by his parents and the look in his father's eyes, that it did not matter any more-that he may as well have his own bike, because at that point in the '80s nobody knew whether he had a month, a year or years to live. For a child to have had to live with being a social pariah, and to have had to keep a secret that they know they will die from, brings with it psychological problems that we cannot even begin to imagine. Their childhood is taken away and they have to live with that secret all their life.
	I welcome the report, because these people need counselling. They need to be able to know that they can speak about the vitally important conditions that they suffer from, and how to deal with them. To use the words of one of our constituents, he felt that he had been born to bleed but did not realise he would have to pay the death penalty for it, and every day he feels ungrateful to be alive. The figures may be wrong or right, but other issues are just as important as the financial compensation that some of the people who have been infected are looking for.
	There was a huge stigma surrounding HIV in the '80s. We know in this place, and many other people know now, that there are only two ways to catch HIV-via sexual intercourse or contaminated blood. Perhaps it is time for us to start doing our bit to let people know that that stigma should not be there any more and that these people should not be afraid to talk about what they have suffered.

Geoffrey Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are conducting a Back-Bench debate that is being coloured by a figure in an amendment that the Government have tabled, which has not been selected. It suggests that £3 billion would be the cost of what my motion proposes. If the exact figure is in the order of 1% of that, or £300 million, as I think the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), a medical doctor, suggested-[Hon. Members: "No, £1 billion."] Does it come to £1 billion? I think that ought to be clarified before we go further in the debate.

Lindsay Hoyle: In fairness, the Minister is going to speak and there will be an opportunity to intervene on her. I am sure she will want to point out the figure at that stage. What I want to do is get on with the debate until she comes to speak, and then I am sure Members in all parts of the House will be able to intervene.

Anne Milton: indicated assent.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am getting the nod from the Minister that that will be dealt with in due course.

Chris Evans: I have been sitting here waiting to speak for an hour or two. Those affected by the tragedy of contaminated blood and blood products have been waiting for justice for more than 25 years.
	I do not have to tell anyone that living with haemophilia is hard. My own cousin was affected by the condition, and when I think of him now I always think of him with a smile on his face. He was always cheerful. As a child, I was always aware that he had haemophilia, although I did not understand what the condition meant. Having done some background reading and spoken to people, I can say this about him now: my admiration for him, my aunt and my uncle has only grown.
	Like many Members, I was motivated to speak in the debate by a number of constituents who have haemophilia and have contacted me with their stories, which I found both moving and inspiring. One e-mail particularly struck a chord with me, and I spoke to the man who wrote it on the phone this morning. Wayne Gambin is 35 years old and has a young family, and he has haemophilia. He was given hepatitis C through a bad blood transfusion. I read about how he gets depressed a lot of the time just thinking about death, which is in the forefront of his mind most of the time. He wonders whether the disease could kick in, causing liver failure and eventually death.
	Over the years, Wayne has tried two different experimental drug combinations, but they have had no effect on the disease. While on the trials he suffered a lot of side effects, such as depression and anger. During one trial three years ago, he lost his job and his house. He has a young family and cannot get life insurance because of the excessive charges, even though he contracted the disease through no fault of his own. He worries about dying and leaving his family destitute. To me, that is a scandal in itself.
	Another constituent who also wrote to me is in his mid-40s and has three children, and was infected with hepatitis C in the '80s following an accident that required surgery. He discovered he had the disease shortly before his 40th birthday and his health deteriorated dramatically, culminating in a liver transplant a year ago. His children now face the prospect of not having their father around in future. He has lost everything, even though he has worked his entire life.
	I know that when we read stories such as that, it is easy to be carried away with the emotion of it all, but we can deal only in fact. Throughout the '70s and the first half the '80s, many in the UK who suffered from haemophilia were treated with blood and blood products that carried what came to be known as hepatitis C. As has been said, some 4,670 patients became infected. Between 1983 and the early 1990s, some 1,200 patients were infected with HIV through blood products. We know that because Lord Archer held an independent public inquiry.
	The Macfarlane Trust was established in 1987 to provide emergency funding for haemophilia patients infected with HIV, most of whom were not expected to live more than five years. Victims, many of whom had a good standard of living beforehand, were required to go cap in hand for discretionary relief. Monthly payments are now dispensed. The Skipton Fund was founded in 2003 following the publication of the Ross report. Those infected with hepatitis C can claim a lump sum of £20,000, and a further £25,000 is paid to those who can establish that their hepatitis C led to severe liver disease.
	I have no doubt that those were welcome developments, but like many other Members I believe that more needs to be done. As many have mentioned, Lord Archer's conclusion, which has caused some controversy, was that payments should be at least equivalent to those payable under the Irish scheme, which is far more generous than ours. I hope that the Irish made that settlement because caring for the victims of the disaster was morally the right thing to do.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) that the annual payments awarded to all patients infected with hepatitis C and HIV through contaminated blood are too low. Considering the damage done to the lives of those infected and their families, they should be increased. Yes, there needs to be some reconciliation, and I welcome the Government's move to review the recommendations of the Archer report, but I hope that they will go further and offer an apology, which costs absolutely nothing.
	One of my constituents wrote to me to say that it is time to bring about an end to this fight and to allow those who remain to live out the rest of their lives with some peace of mind. I wholeheartedly agree with him.

Gareth Johnson: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), I do not profess to have any high degree of expertise. I was approached by a couple of my constituents, who hit me with what can be described only as a moral sledgehammer. They movingly recounted profound stories of their youth and their lost childhoods, which others have mentioned, and of their inability to form full relationships with loved ones. Some victims have had to keep their condition secret owing to a fear of being shunned by people who have a naive attitude towards HIV. The heartbreaking accounts are seemingly endless. Very often, sufferers get into the habit of not telling friends and even relatives, and now find it impossible to divulge the truth. Many victims were children. Some never made it to adulthood.
	We fight and argue in this Chamber over a range of issues, but we would struggle to find a more poignant debate than this. The contracting of HIV through blood transfusions is one of the most profound, disturbing and dreadful episodes in 20th century health treatment. According to my calculations, on average, one person a week has died as a result of being infected with HIV. Those who survive do so only because of a cocktail of drugs that keeps them hanging on to life. That treatment has been described as being on low-dose chemotherapy for the rest of one's life.
	An additional difficulty is that victims must cope with their inability to obtain life insurance-Opposition Members have mentioned that-and they also have difficulty with travel insurance and medicals. I therefore welcome the terms of reference for the review. Surely some help can be offered to the remaining survivors. I use the term "survivor" deliberately, because that is exactly what the remaining sufferers are.
	A further tragedy is the fact that some sufferers were not told of their condition even when it was known by others, leading to the infection of partners. On other occasions, it was felt unnecessary to engage with sufferers as they were not expected to live very long anyway. The treatment that is available today for HIV sufferers was not envisaged in the 1980s, so it was believed that victims had a life expectancy of about five years. Thankfully, that has not been the case in many instances. Understandably, some who were told that they had only five years to live went out and spent their financial award pretty quickly, and enjoyed life to the full without considering investing for the future. Many such victims have consequently been left financially short.
	We are familiar with the root cause of the infection: blood was imported for transfusion when the UK was not self-sufficient. Perhaps we need to look further into that. Safeguards that should have been implemented in both the UK and the US were not. Indeed, it appears that the UK was slow to act on minimising the chances of haemophiliacs contracting HIV. Clearly, mistakes were made, and they must be recognised.
	More important than embarking on a witch hunt is deciding where we go from here. How can we achieve insurance for sufferers and support those who need it most? Infection from tainted blood was indiscriminate. Young and old, haemophiliacs and those who underwent operations were not spared. Nobody was spared.
	The situation affects not only male haemophiliacs; some female cases have been reported. It is very much a matter of regret that the issue of adequate compensation was not tackled some time ago. I suspect that the sheer sums of money are part of the reason why the cause was not picked up by the previous Government. I look to this Government to do what they can to make the situation for sufferers and their families easier.

Matthew Hancock: Like me, my hon. Friend has constituents who are affected by this issue. Does he agree that although it is important to get the numbers and the money right, there is an important principle at stake too? From this debate, it would appear that the House wholeheartedly supports that principle.

Gareth Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. A range of principles is at issue and we need to ensure that people who are affected by this tragedy are properly looked after as best the Government can achieve. We live in times of austerity, and there is a limit on what the Government can do, but it is incumbent on them to do all that they reasonably and practically can to help sufferers.

Valerie Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson).
	My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) paid tribute to the campaigners by wearing a black tie. I am in rather a bright outfit for this occasion because of my own tribute to the breast cancer care campaign.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) on initiating this debate and I support his motion. In the words of Lord Winston, this is the "worst treatment disaster" in the history of the UK. Not only is it a human tragedy, but it is grossly unjust. My constituent Valerie Moule is widowed because, through no fault of her own or of her husband, the blood that he was given as a haemophiliac was contaminated by HIV. Ivan Moule was one of the first people to die from contaminated blood, in 1989. This is an unimaginable injustice. Ivan Moule innocently received blood as a treatment without knowing that it was killing him.
	Injustice in any part of life has to be corrected and someone has to take responsibility when things go wrong-

Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend has outlined some of the big issues that we are debating. Does she agree that one of the most unacceptable aspects of this situation is how widows have been treated?

Valerie Vaz: I agree with my right hon. Friend, and when I was contacted by Mrs Moule she very calmly and quietly encouraged me to take part in this debate.
	When things go wrong, someone has to take responsibility, and that is the cornerstone of a civilised society. Despite their bereavement and illnesses, the determined campaigners, who are sitting in the Public Gallery wearing their armbands, established an independent inquiry paid for by private means. Not only do they have truth on their side, but-since April 2010-they have had the law on their side. In the Republic of Ireland, a full financial scheme is in place, with a compensation scheme based on civil law principles, but that is not mirrored in this country.
	Haemophiliacs began dying of AIDS in the early 1980s. Some 2,000 people have already died having been infected by HIV. In my view, the Archer inquiry made significant recommendations that should all be implemented. It was cost-effective at the time to buy blood from other countries that was unscreened and, if we are not careful, that could happen again if commercial, cost-cutting considerations are brought into an area where they do not belong. As the Archer report says, commercial priorities should never override the interests of public health. This is a matter of public importance and public interest.
	Proper financial relief should be paid to those who were infected. As a nation, we should apologise to those families who have suffered. We also need a commitment that blood will be screened and that blood from imported or unknown sources will not be used. We owe that to those who have died, like Ivan Moule, and to the living who cared for them, like Valerie Moule. I urge hon. Members to do the right thing and support the motion.

Mark Garnier: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz).
	I feel moved to speak today because this is an issue that shows how we as a society can show compassion for our fellow citizens and take responsibility for past mistakes. I have been well aware of the general topic of people suffering from contaminated blood transfusions for some time, but I did not become aware of either the full scale or the injustices of the problem until I met Ros Cooper, a constituent of mine, to whom I am incredibly grateful. She speaks with passion about this subject, and is an incredibly strong advocate for her fellow sufferers. She is relentless in her efforts to get her point across.
	Ros's story is not untypical. Diagnosed with a severe bleeding disorder at just six months, she has received blood products all her life. She receives them from as infrequently as three times a week to as often as twice a day. By the age of 14 she was able to inject herself with blood products. This is a woman who has had to grow up under the permanent threat of severe bleeding. Of course she has received treatment from the NHS, but as a direct result of that treatment she contracted hepatitis C-something she discovered only by hearsay, which seems to be a recurrent theme in this debate. Not only was she not given counselling to help her cope with that traumatic news, but she also found out by hearsay that she might have been exposed to CJD.
	Ros has received two rounds of treatment for her hepatitis C, but those, of course, are also traumatic. Six to 12 months of antiviral therapy can leave a patient unable to work: Ros was unable to earn a living for up to two years after both rounds of treatment. In the future she faces a liver transplant, cirrhosis or, worse still, cancer of the liver, as all sufferers of hepatitis C do. She is a vibrant young woman and would otherwise have faced a life that was admittedly severely inconvenienced-but still only inconvenienced-by her bleeding disorder. However, because she received contaminated blood products, arguably at a time when those providing them knew there was a risk of infection, she is severely disadvantaged.
	Modern medicine has resulted in new types of manufactured blood products, reducing the risk to most patients. However, for Ros this salvation is not available. She suffers from a very rare disorder-type 3 von Willebrands-which means that she must receive real blood products that still come from America and overseas. So from between three times a week to up to twice a day, Ros injects herself with blood products that may carry an as yet undiscovered infection. Every time she feels exhausted or unwell, she will ask herself if she has infected herself with another illness. What is truly remarkable about Ros's story is that she is clear of HIV, which is very welcome news.
	The fact that we are having this debate is a significant leap forward, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) on his efforts to move this incredibly important issue forward, and the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) on taking up the banner. That it has taken so long for us to debate the matter, however, is a cause for concern, especially given the 4,670 people infected by hepatitis C and the 1,200 or so infected by HIV-infections that have resulted in nearly 1,800 deaths.
	At the core of this debate are the findings and recommendations of the Archer review. To my mind, the eight recommendations are broadly reasonable, and I am amazed that some, such as free prescriptions, were not introduced a long time ago. However, I am grateful to the Minister for making a statement saying that that will be reviewed. Of course, however, there is always a sticking point-in this case, the level of compensation, which has now been even more confused by the amount of money that we are now discussing.
	Some payments have already been made. In 2004 payments of £20,000, rising to £25,000 for more advanced stages of illnesses through hepatitis C, were made through the Skipton Fund. Other payments of a similar initial sum, rising to £60,000 on a needs assessment basis, plus ongoing payments, have been made through the MacFarlane Trust. However, those two systems illustrate that some form of uniformity needs to be established. If an individual's life is blighted, irrespective of what is causing the blight, it is important to have uniformity of payout. I am very supportive of the Hepatitis C Trust's recommendations that the Skipton Fund's payout should be increased to the levels paid by the MacFarlane Trust.
	I support the motion in full, but-I say this with a heavy heart-with one exception. When we talk about implementing the Archer report despite the intense financial pressure on the public purse, I am mindful that in just six days' time my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver a statement that could make life-changing cuts to public expenditure. I cast an eye towards my many, many constituents, all of whom are extremely anxious about the comprehensive spending review, and I must act in the interests of all of them. It is vital that the victims of this tragedy should be allowed to live their lives as best they can-

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend has mentioned the comprehensive spending review, but we should not forget that the health budget is ring-fenced and will be increased. We have also heard mention of the insurance industry and the companies that supplied blood products. I hope that he will join me in urging all Members to come forward with ideas to ensure the maximum compensation pot, whether that comes from public funds or, for example, from the £1 billion that exists in the insurance industry in orphan accounts. All Members should be contributing to that debate.

Mark Garnier: I welcome that intervention. It is incumbent on us all to work with Health Ministers to ensure that we find as much money as we can to help the victims. However, we have to be careful to ensure that compensation is not paid at the potential expense of many other special interest groups that need and deserve compensation and funding.
	I am pleased that the Minister has said that the issue will be resolved, in one way or another, by the end of this year. I look forward to working with Members who have been affected by the contaminated blood scandal to ensure that the Minister comes up with a satisfactory response.

Mark Durkan: Unlike some other hon. Members, I do not have permission to name any constituent who suffers from this predicament. However, I do hear from people who are affected, as well as from those in other constituencies in Northern Ireland, about exactly the same problems, tensions and sad experiences that other hon. Members have so articulately reflected on.
	Many hon. Members in this debate have emphasised the importance of ensuring parity between sufferers from hepatitis C and sufferers from HIV, and the principle seems to be shared universally across the House. My problem, in a border constituency in Northern Ireland, is that I want to see parity between my constituents in Foyle and those in the next-door constituency of Donegal North East, who benefit from the Irish Government's compensation scheme. That scheme had its roots in the recognition in 1995, by the then Irish Government-the rainbow coalition of John Bruton and Dick Spring-that led to a tribunal being set up in 1996, which was making significant payments long before the subsequent findings of liability by the Lindsay or Finlay tribunals, or by the hepatitis C tribunal in 2002.
	Not only have we had the scandal of the health mistreatment disaster, which created this plight for so many people; there has also been the scandal of the failure of the political process to deal with it. There is no point in our talking about this or that Government; the fact is that, collectively, the political process has failed to discharge its responsibilities properly, as compared with what a nearby political process has been able to deliver. The word "scandal" is much overworked in this society, in the media and in politics, but what we are talking about is a true scandal, and we have to call a halt to it now.
	In the past, we had Governments giving false excuses and making false comparisons with the Irish scheme, with false references to the issue of liability and so on. Now that has been nailed. However, after the false contrasts of the past, we cannot now have false comparisons to describe the relative or comparative costs of the schemes. Clearly we need proper differentiation between the wider package that was available in the south of Ireland, to take account of the fact that not everybody had health cover, prescription cover, medical card cover or whatever. I accept that that has to be done properly if we are to achieve true parity. However, we cannot turn round and offer the victims stone for bread, and say that now that we have finally recognised the problem and are addressing it, our excuse for not giving them what justice demands is the financial exigencies of the Exchequer.
	If justice says that people are due compensation, and if we all say that this is our democratic will, then that is what should happen. If that puts a strain on the Exchequer and the rest of us, it is a strain that we have to bear, because we owe it to those who have suffered as they should not have suffered, and who have endured and struggled for so long, with so many people dying in the effort.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have nine speakers to fit in, and I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at 3.40 pm, which gives us 30 minutes. I ask for as much discipline as possible, as I want to ensure that everyone who wants to speak can be called.

Jason McCartney: I should like to add my congratulations to the Backbench Business Committee on securing this debate, and to thank the hon. Members for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan) for their contributions. I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who has just left the Chamber, for his thoughtful, insightful and revealing speech. I also want to thank all the victims of this scandal and their loved ones who are up in the Public Gallery. Many of you have been here since 10.30 this morning, as I have. Thank you for your patience, and I hope that in about an hour's time, you will feel that your time here has been worth while.
	Debates such as these are what I was elected for. I am passionate about this issue, and I am determined that we should stop dragging our heels and begin the process of closure in this shocking scandal. As most of us here know, the scandal was caused by the importing of Factor VIII from the United States, where blood was extracted from prisoners for money by commercial companies, and not properly sterilised or treated before being used in British hospitals for the treatment of haemophiliacs.
	Over the years Governments of the day had several chances to act, but they missed every time. Again and again the victims of this scandal have been betrayed. Already 1,800 of the 4,800 British haemophiliacs affected have died. Of the 1,243 people who contracted HIV, only 345 are still alive today. It is the human tragedies that are the feature of this shocking scandal.
	I have had a general awareness of the scandal for only a few years. It was only when I met an amazing man from Lindley in the north of my constituency that it really hit me, and I have to admit that I have been emotionally drawn into the issue. Mr C-he wishes to remain anonymous-was dignified and polite. He told me that as a 12-year-old haemophiliac, he was injected with dirty blood products. He was injected with HIV and hepatitis C. He is still alive, thanks to his positive outlook and with the help of a cocktail of drugs. He has no anger or bitterness, just a desire to get some fairness, mainly for his family. It is also worth remembering that many of the victims were already suffering from other illnesses, or had suffered an accident, before they were infected by the contaminated blood products.
	For too many decades this issue has been swept under the carpet. I came into Parliament to do the right thing, and to stand up for those who have been wronged. Many of those people are up in the Gallery now. I am not going to get bogged down by the intricacies of the Archer report, or by the financial commitments involved. I know, as many of us do, that there is little money left, which just adds to my indignation that this matter was not cleared up in better times. I shall, however, praise my Government for their action over the previous 13 days, in which they have done a lot more than was done in the previous 13 years. I am immensely proud of what has happened in the past 24 hours, including the movement by the Minister. I also welcome a number of the recommendations in the ministerial statement, which I saw this morning.
	I am now going to put down my notes. I said that I had been emotionally drawn into this issue, and I now want to address the many people up in the Gallery and look them in the eye. I came into this Chamber as a Member of Parliament to do the right thing. For too long, you and your families have suffered. You have been the victims of this scandal, and I hope that I, and other Members, can do the right thing. I shall therefore support the motion later.

Damian Hinds: I am conscious that there are many hon. Members still wishing to speak, so I shall be brief. As the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) said, it is almost inevitable, given the number of people involved in this scandal, that there will be someone in every constituency who has been affected. The issue has especial significance in my constituency, because it is home to the outstanding Lord Mayor Treloar college, where many of the victims were students in the 1970s and 1980s. There were many haemophiliacs at the college because it had an excellent in-house haemophilia centre. My constituent Mr Adrian Goodyear was one of those who was infected by contaminated blood and blood products. He wrote to me to say:
	"We've now lost so many of our friends from the Treloar days-in fact, we stopped counting at 40-many of whom were children, teenagers or young adults at the time."
	Those words will stay with me.
	I would like to pay tribute to all the tireless campaigners from the affected community for their perseverance and tenacity over many years. I congratulate them, and everyone involved on securing this historic debate on the Floor of the House. Hon. Members across the political spectrum have also been instrumental in keeping up the fight. Among them was my predecessor as East Hampshire's MP, Michael Mates, for whom this was a special cause.
	Like most others, I cannot begin to imagine the anguish and fury of the thousands of patients infected by contaminated blood. Whether we call it accident, negligence or anything else, these people came to receive treatment through our national health service-and were poisoned. For some it has been a death sentence; for others a long lingering life sentence.
	There are some things in this morning's written statement that are to be welcomed, including the Minister's commitment to look afresh at insurance, prescription charges, and access to care services and nursing. Many hon. Members have spoken about compensation, which is, of course, fundamental. It has become clear through this debate-for the reasons expounded by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell)-that today's motion, as currently worded, is not the best basis on which to move forward. We all look to the Minister to move forward towards a just settlement that will allow those people and their families, who have suffered so much, to reach some sort of closure.
	For about the next 30 seconds I want to focus on a different aspect-apology. One of the worst aspects of this whole sad affair is that so many, including those children from Treloar, died without anybody saying, "We're sorry." That makes me very uncomfortable. It is not about assigning blame. There could be-indeed, there has been-long debate over the technicalities of liability or otherwise, who knew what and when, how quickly things could have changed and so forth. Regardless of those specifics, surely the victims of this disaster are owed the dignity of a proper apology. I have read the expressions of sympathy, but I do not think they quite go far enough. The events predate most current Members of the House, and I am not suggesting that a Minister should come to the Dispatch Box to take, or indeed assign, blame. I do think, however, that it is not too much to ask to give the victims the dignity of hearing a Minister of the Crown come to the Floor of this House and say, "Yes, we are truly sorry."

Caroline Dinenage: I echo others this afternoon in saying how much I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate-a debate should that have happened many years ago. I also reiterate the tributes to the victims and their families, some of whom are watching our debate. The tragedy of contaminated blood is undoubtedly one of the biggest medical disasters in the history of the NHS. It is important to establish how this medical catastrophe was allowed to happen, and to protect those whose lives were devastated as a result.
	I recently met a delegation of people who had suffered through the Equitable Life disaster. Although I have every sympathy with their plight, today's debate puts that matter into perspective because we are talking not about the loss of life savings, but about the loss of life itself, loss of livelihood and of the chance to grow old, and losing the chance to become a parent and see one's children grow up.
	It seems wholly appropriate that people whose lives have been devastated by this disaster should be fairly compensated. After today's discussions about how much it will cost, I very much look forward to hearing the Minister speak later about whether this is affordable. I do not believe, however, that the relatives are purely after money. As George Santayana said:
	"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
	That explains why this debate is so important, as it ensures that the tragedy will not be forgotten and, with the help of Lord Archer's recommendations, that it will not be repeated.
	One of those affected was from my Gosport constituency-a haemophiliac who had just a 10-day window of NHS treatment for his condition, but those 10 days proved to be his death sentence, as he was infected with both HIV and hepatitis C. This man suffered in every way as a result of his infection. He lost the chance to father children and to further his career; he suffered pain, humiliation, poverty, prejudice and, ultimately, death. His family lived a lie to avoid the stigma of HIV, and were therefore cut off from the possibility of much-needed support from friends and neighbours. His stepdaughter talks of a "lost childhood". Such was, and in many cases still is, the fear and prejudice in relation to HIV that sufferers whom I have met who were open about their illnesses had their homes daubed with red paint and their children hounded from their schools.
	That man's family suffered financial hardship. As he was unable to obtain life assurance, his widow was left not only a single mother but with a mortgage to pay. He died on Christmas Eve 1998 at the age of just 40. He died of a life-threatening condition and three terminal diseases. He died struggling not just against his illness but against huge financial worries and fear for the future of his family, and under the oppressive burden of injustice.
	Now, 12 years later, his widow is still fighting against that injustice. She talks of her fight against the sense that somehow the life of this man, her husband, did not count, because no Government seemed to care. Her simple desire is not to wake up every morning of her life and think of that. She talks of the frustrating myths that prevail. One is that victims were compensated. The truth is that the Skipton Fund drew a line in the sand-an arbitrary date in 2003 after which relatives of people who died were given small ex gratia payments. My constituent died in 1998. His widow was told that her husband had died five years too early; to her mind he had died 45 years too early.
	Today in the House we have a fantastic opportunity. The contaminated blood tragedy has finally been granted a platform, and we as elected Members have a responsibility in the coming months to ensure that we fight for a just outcome for the tainted blood community. That tiny community of sick, bereaved and dying people, many of whom are living in poverty, will go on fighting no matter what the outcome today. We as parliamentarians should feel humbled by their bravery and take up the fight on their behalf.
	Martin Luther King once said:
	"when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of 'nobodiness'- then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait."
	That is how this little community goes on: waiting and dying, dying and waiting.
	Whatever happens as a result of the vote today, we must ultimately put an end to this. No amount of money can bring back those who have suffered and died-their dead will remain dead, their losses will remain lost-but we can help them to shed the burden of injustice and regain financial security. My hope is that my constituent will one day again be able to wake up in the morning knowing that each day is a day to be loved, a day to be lived, and not a day to be fought.

Andrea Leadsom: One of the first principles of any health care is "first do no harm". I think it was Florence Nightingale who said that. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have shown today how much we care about what has happened. I echo the words of the many who have said that we owe a huge apology, as parliamentarians, on behalf of the Department of Health, which, inadvertently or otherwise, has caused so much tragedy to so many people who have suffered.
	I also pay tribute to my constituent Stuart, who I am very glad to see is well enough to be here. He first came to my surgery a couple of months ago with the heartbreaking story of his own situation as a haemophiliac infected with hepatitis C and HIV, and now suffering from advanced liver disease. He has become used to seeing friends and family dying; he has become used to the fact that he often cannot afford to go to their funerals; and he has become used to popping around to someone's house for a drink only to find two weeks later that that person has died from, for instance, a brain tumour or liver cancer. It is hard to imagine.
	I warmly welcome the ministerial statement. I spoke to my hon. Friend the Minister specifically about my constituents, and I can assure Members on both sides of the House that she is as genuinely sad and sorry about the situation as any of us here. I urged her, on behalf of my constituents, to do three things. First, I urged her to do whatever she could to ensure that they achieve closure. This has gone on for so long. We may not be able to give these people everything that they want, but let us at least put them in a position that will enable them to say, "We have got enough: we can take off our campaigning boots and start to enjoy what time is left to us and to our families." Secondly, I urged her to try to give time to all who want to speak to her during the review period between now and Christmas, so that they can tell her their stories, put their side of case and ask her to help them. Thirdly, I urged her to try to ensure that every possible step was taken to prevent anything like this from ever happening again. This was not a deliberate action on anyone's part. It was, however, caused by a lack of joined-up thinking and a failure to take opportunities as they arose.
	Like all Members, my heart truly goes out to those affected, but I feel confident that my hon. Friend the Minister will take every opportunity to put right the wrongs of past generations. It is a great shame that the last Government did not do that when our economic situation was better and that it is therefore left to us to try to sort this problem out at a time of great economic hardship. I assure the Minister that she has my support in her efforts to put this right.

Mark Spencer: I will be as brief as possible. I have heard the stories of my own constituents and I have also listened to many other similarly tragic stories, and that shows the magnitude of this problem throughout the country. I welcome the fact that Opposition Members recognise that this has been an issue for successive Governments, and that they regret that it was not tackled in the previous 13 years and we are therefore now left in the position of needing to try to solve this enormous problem.
	I also want to thank the Front-Bench team for having taken this matter so seriously. It has looked into it and, for the first time, has committed to taking action. We now have a timetable in place, and we will know the direction we are going in by Christmas. That is an enormous step forward. I am grateful that we now at least have a plan and a direction, and I hope we can achieve the right outcome.

David Mowat: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) for being brief and thereby letting me contribute to the debate, and I shall be brief as well. Like many others, I welcome the movement from the Minister over the past couple of days.
	I want to make three points. I would like the Minister to comment on them in her concluding remarks, and I would certainly welcome their being addressed in her review. The first is the difference between how this problem has been dealt with in this country and other countries. A lot has been said about Ireland, but Ireland is not the only country in question: there is also Japan, Canada and Italy. It has been said that past Governments have failed to address the problem and that is true, but it is only Governments of our country who have failed. I would like to know where our response to the problem will rank in comparison with that of other countries, and I hope we will finish at least halfway up the international league table.
	Secondly, I want to draw attention to the distinction we have persistently drawn between hepatitis C sufferers and HIV sufferers. When I first looked into this issue, I simply did not understand that, time and again, whenever a compensation payment was made we drew that distinction. People with hepatitis C are unable to work in the same way as those with HIV, and people with hepatitis C are also dying prematurely in the same way. We really have to stop drawing that distinction. It has even been drawn latterly in respect of the Archer report. The annual payment now being made to HIV sufferers is, I think, £12,800, whereas hepatitis C sufferers, who have about the same amount of discomfort, have merely got a review in five years' time. That is not right.
	My third point is about money, about which a number of interesting comments have been made, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee). The cost of matching the sums we have given to the HIV folk in payments to the hepatitis C folk is 3,500 people multiplied by £12,800 a year. That comes to £40 million a year. That is the cost of implementing Archer in the same way for the hepatitis C people as for the HIV people. I would be extremely interested to hear what my Front-Bench colleague has to say about that, and I would like it to be addressed in the review. How can we reconcile that sum of £40 million a year that will not be for ever-unfortunately the number of these people is declining-with the sum of £3 billion?
	Finally, let me say that this is not just about money. Had it been just about money, we would have fixed the problem 10 years ago when more money was going into the national health service than it was able to spend. This is about principle, and we have the chance to sort it out.
	I also regret that the motion refers to a comparison with Ireland. That country does give eight to 10 times more money than we have been able to find, but other countries come in between ours and Ireland on that list. We should not be constrained to signing up to a one-country approach, but we have to get this fixed.

Harriett Baldwin: Thank you for allowing me to speak in this historic debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. Like so many of my colleagues, this issue has been brought to my attention by the impact it has had on the life of a constituent-in my case, the constituent is Colette Wintle.
	Colette was born in 1959 and was diagnosed with haemophilia in 1962. When she went to have her tonsils out in 1976, she was given American blood products which first caused her infection with hepatitis. In 1982, at a hospital in Kent, she was given factor VIII concentrate, which infected her with hepatitis C. In 1985, at a hospital in London, she was once again given treatment with blood products, which made her very ill with hepatitis C, although mercifully she did not contract HIV. Subsequently, she has been so weak with illness that she had to stop work at the age of 38. She has contracted cirrhosis of the liver and lives in fear of developing liver cancer in her damaged liver.
	As we all know, it is not possible for doctors to undo the damage to Colette's health and it is not possible for her ever to be adequately compensated for the harm that was done to her by the infected blood products. The question is what we should do now, as a society, to compensate people such as Colette and her family. We have heard about the Skipton Fund, and I think that everyone in this debate acknowledges that the payments of a maximum of £45,000 are not adequate to compensate someone for that treatment.
	We have also talked a lot about different numbers, and I wish to help the House. As 4,672 people have been infected over the years, a payment of £1 million to each of them would involve £4.672 billion. A payment of £100,000 to every sufferer would involve £467.2 million-I believe I have those figures right. That puts the £3 billion cost into context; it would work out to be £642,000 per individual. But Colette has not been able to work since she was 38 and has had to pay for her NHS prescriptions. She looks ahead to the future, but her general practitioner is unable to assure her that she will have access to specialist nursing at home if her condition worsens.
	I welcome what the Minister said in her statement and the fact that she will look urgently at a number of issues. However, will she clarify whether the compensation that will be recommended by the review will reflect the length of time that individuals have had to suffer and been unable to work because of the illness? Will the review also examine something that is being debated a lot with the Department for Work and Pensions: what happens when an individual is being assessed for their ability to work? Can we agree in this House today that it would be good if we exempted all these individuals-the 2,700 surviving patients-from any further assessment of their capacity to work?
	No money could ever compensate these victims for what has happened. Their health can never be repaired, but let us ensure that as a result of this debate and of this inquiry we ensure, once and for all, that the patients do not experience further financial disadvantage from this terrible situation.

Paul Maynard: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for tabling this motion. It is vital to realise that when the noble Lord Owen first took action on this issue as a Minister the year was 1975-the year of my birth, which shows just how long this issue has been current and how long it has not been dealt with by Governments of all political persuasions.
	I understand that when medical treatment does not go according to plan-when something goes wrong and disability or a chronic condition results from it-a wound is opened that is very difficult to heal. It cannot be healed by money alone, although compensation is important. Intense frustrations are released. We have heard talk of a lost childhood, for example, or of what might have been or never would be, and of early deaths. Such events affect lives totally in a way that many of us cannot really understand.
	That is why I welcome unambiguously the written ministerial statement, not just for what it contains but for the fact that it deals with issues such as travel insurance and access to insurance. I am not going to get hung up on what the meaning of the word "access" might or might not be in the view of the Minister. The fact that we are covering those things is what matters. Many haemophiliacs want to lead as ordinary a life as possible. We need to understand the gap between the lives that ordinary people lead and the effect of haemophilia and other conditions on people's ability to lead an ordinary life. That, to me, is crucial.
	I made an effort to read the Minister's statement before I came into the Chamber-many hon. Members might have found that a useful exercise. However, having read it carefully, I noted one omission-or, perhaps, one thing that I could not find. It was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), but I want to stress it a bit more: it is the Skipton Fund and the arbitrary cut-off date of 28 August 2003 for payments. I was not clear from the statement whether that would be readdressed in the Minister's review.
	I came into politics largely out of frustration at the poor quality of public policy making in this country under all parties-I just happened to pick the Conservative party as the vehicle from which to express my frustration. There is a useful quotation in the briefing documentation with which we were provided, which I want to read as quickly as I can, about the Skipton fund. It is from the Department of Health and says:
	"The announcement of a scheme on 29 August 2003 occurred after the Secretary of State had revisited this issue...The difficult decision not to extend the scheme to people who had died before this date meant that it became an unavoidable cut-off point. We realise that the circumstances are not ideal, but have attempted to provide a pragmatic solution."
	I have seen a fair amount of civil-service speak in my time, but that is as near as I have come to finding one that admits, "This is an awful decision. We know that it is an awful decision, but tough. You will have to live with it."
	I urge the Minister to try to include a review of this arbitrary cut-off date in the work that she is doing in the run-up to Christmas. I unambiguously welcome the progress that we are making, as everybody from all parties should. In particular, I ask for clarity on the figure of £3 billion. If there is a loose zero floating around this debate, it will make it very hard for hon. Members fully to understand the motion and the issues before us, so I ask for clarity.
	Finally, the number of people who have wanted to speak has underlined the importance that Members attach to the subject. We will pay very close attention come Christmas to the outcome of the review. I am sure that all of us in the Chamber and in the Public Gallery will hope that we will finally get the closure that so many people want. It will be difficult to achieve, but we need it.

Richard Fuller: Thank you for allowing me to speak for a couple of minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker. The actions at the root of this debate take us back many years. For many of us-including me-they take us back to a period that stirs great emotions. It was a period when an illness was ignored, when people's deaths and suffering were marked by stigma, when Governments were in disarray and, too often, in denial and when life-changing mistakes were being made.
	Everyone in this House commends the campaigners on this issue for their vigilance and persistence over the years. The debate relates to a judgment between principle and practicality in the operation of our Government, but also to individual lives, such as that of a family that lives in Kempston in my constituency. The issue of principle appears to be accepted and clear to all sides: a group of our own citizens, who had already suffered greatly, have been denied justice for many-too many-years. It is the responsibility of all hon. Members to challenge the Government to bring that period of injustice to a close. If December it is, Minister, then December it must be.
	The main practical argument concerns cost, which is wrapped in the real pressures of affordability given the current pressures on the public purse. The written ministerial statement contains welcome indications for those affected by hepatitis, but I urge the Minister to consider the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) in clearing up other anomalies.
	My constituent, Lisa, wrote to me urging me to attend this debate. She stated:
	"We must trust in the democratic process to enable us to bring about change".
	It is my honour to represent her today. She wrote movingly about how she lost her husband when he was just 32-her son was just two years old at the time; about the pain as his body struggled in his failing battle with HIV and hepatitis; about the consequential financial pressures of losing her home; and about the sadness of a family life denied but which lives on in her heart and that of her son.
	Lord Jenkin described the issue of contaminated blood as "a disaster", which is surely the right description. Yesterday, we witnessed on our television screens another country come together to overcome the consequences of another disaster and painstakingly rescue 33 heroes who had suffered entrapment below ground and return them to their loved ones. Too many of the heroes who have fought for justice cannot be here today and cannot be returned to their loved ones. However, many of them are here, and many of the loved ones of those affected by this disaster are present, too.
	It is time for the Government to show their mettle and demonstrate their principles, if not their culpability. I wait with anticipation to hear the Minister's reply and place my trust and that of my constituents in her resolve.

Lindsay Hoyle: I shall move on to the Front-Bench speakers. I have the pleasure of calling Diane Abbott. It has taken since 1987 for her to reach the Front Bench, which is a long time, so we look forward to this experience.

Diane Abbott: We can see from the attendance of this debate how seriously the entire House takes this historic injustice. There is no more significant subject for me to discuss in my first speech at the Dispatch Box.
	We are all aware that the eyes of the haemophilia community are on us this afternoon. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, this historic injustice represents a failure of the entire political class. This matter has been a long-standing concern of mine. It concerns a small community, which, as we have heard, consists of fewer than 5,000 people, of the sick, the bereaved and the dying. I have long thought that the role of a Back Bencher is to be a voice for the voiceless.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) on moving the motion with such passion and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), whose brainchild it is. I note the fact, which is not sufficiently recognised, that without the important reforms that took place at the end of the previous Parliament, which enabled Back Benchers to set the agenda for this House, we would not be having this debate.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) on her leadership of the Backbench Business Committee. I agree, not for the first time, with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) in saying that these Back-Bench debates should not be treated as second-class Opposition days. Above all, I congratulate the campaigners on this issue, who over 25 years have made it possible for this historic debate to take place.
	We have heard some excellent contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. One cannot touch on this subject without referring to the years of work by the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott). Many hon. Members have spoken movingly about their constituents, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and the hon. Members for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) and for Dartford (Gareth Johnson).
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) made the important point that the victims include not only the individuals struck down by those illnesses and tainted blood, but whole families. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) said that our Government-the outgoing Government-should have dealt with the matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) called it one of the major injustices of our time. My right hon. and well-respected Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) said that there should be humility on both sides of the House.
	I welcome the review announced by the Minister and the terms of reference. For the avoidance of doubt, I have read the terms of reference, and I shall leave it to her to speak about them in detail. The Opposition particularly welcome the focus on the problems of sufferers of hepatitis C, as well as the raising of issues of insurance and access to nursing care and care in the community. I urge her to conclude the report before the end of the year if possible and, as she will understand, I would be interested to see the costings behind the questioned £3 billion figure that the Government have put in their amendment.
	Finally, I should like to commit myself to working with Members across the House to get the best possible outcome for the people-some of whom many of us have met today-who have suffered so cruelly, so unfairly and for so long.

Anne Milton: Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on her new post. We have something in common, inasmuch as I worked in Hackney for most of my life before I entered politics.
	This has been a moving debate and I, too, welcome this opportunity to discuss these issues and to air people's situations openly in the House. The story of those who have been affected by contaminated blood and its products is a dreadful human tragedy. I wonder whether, but can only hope that, an expression of sympathy from me can go some way towards making a difference to those affected. I am deeply sorry about the events that led to the infection of people who were treated with blood products with HIV and hepatitis C.
	We always welcome new knowledge, but with that knowledge often comes deep regret about events that happened in the past. If we only knew then what we know now. We should always make sure, individually and as Governments, that we have the humility to learn from our past. I thank hon. Members for raising so many issues-about the terrible loss of life, of course, and about stigma and the additional cost of things such as dentistry. Yes, I would happily meet a delegation of hon. Members and my door will be open during this period of review.
	I shall do all I can, in the time and on the terms available, to make sure that people's views on access to psychological support are heard. I shall not be able to deal with all the points that have been raised today, but officials will come back to hon. Members, who, if they have further questions, can always contact me.

Diana Johnson: Will the Minister address an issue that has not been raised-the medical assessments that people on benefits now have to go through under the new welfare reform programme? Will she consider making representations to her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about passporting this group of claimants so that they do not have to go through medical assessments again?

Anne Milton: The hon. Lady makes an important point that has crossed my mind already. I shall talk to colleagues and officials in the DWP to make sure that that issue is addressed.
	It is important to put on record some relevant events. In the early 1960s, the life expectancy of someone with haemophilia was less than 40 years. In the early 1970s, the development of a revolutionary new treatment-clotting factor concentrates produced from large pools of human plasma-led to what was then considered an exciting new era of treatment. It offered the potential to extend significantly the length and quality of the lives of patients with haemophilia. The risk of viral transmission through blood and blood products was recognised at that time, particularly the risk of post-transfusion hepatitis. Generally though, the consensus within the scientific community was that the risk of using multiple donors was low and worth taking. Significantly, at that time, the Haemophilia Society said, in a bulletin published in September 1983, that
	"the advantages of treatment far outweigh any possible risk".
	Sadly, we know how wrong that was. Tragically, the society was wrong and a devastating blow was dealt. The initial hope was ultimately replaced by the dreadful realisation that, although lives were extended, almost 5,000 patients with haemophilia in the UK and thousands more throughout the world had been infected with hepatitis C, HIV or indeed both.
	Many of those people have since lost their lives to those conditions, and more continue to do so by the week, and we should pay tribute to the many campaigners who have died. I fully understand the sense of grievance and anger that people feel. I am not in that position, and it is impossible to know fully what it feels like, but I do understand some of it. I also know that for some time, whatever the Government do, sadly it will be far too little, far too late.
	At the time, however, no other treatment was available. The UK blood supply and the only alternative, a product called cryoprecipitate, were both contaminated. The only real treatment, therefore, was no treatment at all, and that was the case not only in the UK, but in countries throughout the world. At the time, France, Germany, Japan and the United States all took a similar view, which was widely held by the scientific community throughout the world.
	When those treatments were first introduced, we had a very different view also of the risks from hepatitis C. It was not until the mid-1980s that scientific and medical literature began to reflect increasing concern about the seriousness of disease associated with hepatitis C, and I, as somebody who was working as a nurse at the time, remember it well.

John Pugh: The Minister will be aware that in the Government's response to the Archer report, certain documents are described as "misplaced"-they no longer exist or can be found. Do they have any bearing whatever on the analysis, and if they were discovered would they correct it in any way?

Anne Milton: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are talking about a long time ago; that is the trouble. I know that campaigners have been concerned about cover-ups, and that not all the documents have been released. I assure him that officials have told me that all documents have been released, but somewhere in the back of a cupboard, somebody at some point might discover more. It is a mistake to think that there is any conspiracy, however. I do believe, in all honesty, that previous Governments and the current Government have done, and continue to do, all that they can to ensure that all information is in the public domain.
	As the consensus on the virus developed and technological advances occurred, the Government and the NHS moved quite quickly to address the risks. Heat treatment was introduced in 1985, and that effectively killed the hepatitis and HIV viruses. Validated tests for screening blood donations were also introduced. Since then, Governments have introduced a number of important safeguards to protect the blood supply, not least, as we heard today, from newer risks such as new variant CJD. We carefully assess, and shall continue to assess, all new evidence as it comes to light, and we now have EU directives that set standards of quality and safety.
	I fully understand again the financial difficulties that many of those affected by contaminated blood products face. I have met some of them, and they have told me in some detail of their extraordinary experiences of living with the aftermath of infection. Not only were many of them infected, but they went on to infect their partners. They are, understandably, very concerned about their own and their family's financial security, and they look to the Government to provide a degree of certainty in the years ahead.
	Going-what may feel like-cap in hand to the state is demeaning, I know, but it is worth laying out the financial settlements that are currently available. Those infected with HIV receive a flat-rate payment of £12,800 per year, and they may also be eligible for additional discretionary payments. In the year ending April 2010, the average total payment to an individual infected with HIV was £17,400, although of course some received less and some received more. Those infected with hepatitis C are eligible to receive an initial one-off lump sum payment of £20,000 when they develop chronic infection. Despite contracting the virus, some people will make a full recovery, but many do not and go on to develop serious liver disease. For that group, there is a second one-off payment of £25,000. All those payments are tax-free and not used when calculating an individual's eligibility for state benefits. Therefore, if they were unable to work for health reasons they would receive those benefits, but I take the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana R. Johnson).
	The independent public inquiry on NHS-supplied contaminated blood and blood products, chaired by Lord Archer of Sandwell, investigated the circumstances surrounding the supply of blood products. It made several recommendations, the majority of which are in place in one way or another. However, a small number of recommendations have not been implemented. These primarily relate to aspects of the ex gratia payments, free prescriptions in England, and access to insurance.
	I have instigated a review of those recommendations to see what more can be done. I know that hon. Members would love me to finish that review before Christmas. I will do what I can in the time available; I know that time is of the essence. The review will be conducted by Department of Health officials, but with the support of relevant clinical experts and external groups. The terms of reference should be in the Library. At this stage, let me put on record that I will place in the Library how the costs of implementing the Irish scheme in the UK were arrived at. I know that that has caused some concern, but I will come back to it, because time is very short.
	I do not have time to go into detail on what happened in Ireland, but it is important to place on the record that in an article in  The Irish Times-I will ensure that this is also in the Library-Brian Cowen, then Minister for Health and Children in the Republic of Ireland, and currently Taoiseach, confirmed that the Irish Government knew in 1995 that the Blood Transfusion Service Board had been negligent and had attempted to conceal that fact.

Andy Slaughter: Will the Minister deal with the two points that I raised in my remarks? First, do the terms of reference permit the inquiry body to consider the issue of hepatitis C in it widest sense-that is, to give it full parity, including in relation to the ex gratia payments of £12,800 a year for HIV? Secondly, given that she says that there are only a small number of recommendations to be addressed, why does not the new inquiry consider all those remaining issues, including the level of ex gratia payments?

Anne Milton: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will admit to a certain amount of ignorance. I do not know what I can do, but I will do everything I can within what I am allowed to do. It is important to say that I am very keen to get on with this. The danger with an inquiry that extends its remit is that it drags on and on, and this issue has dragged on for more than 25 years.
	No fault has ever been found here in the UK-a fact that has been tested in the courts. In 1988, a group of haemophilia patients and their families sued the Government of the day. They settled their case outside court, midway through the proceedings, as their solicitors had advised that they had very limited chance of success.
	Whatever happened all those years ago does not change the facts of today. In the United Kingdom, decisions over tax and spend are made here in this Parliament. The decisions of the Irish Parliament, like those of any other national Parliament, have no authority here in the UK. The debate on contaminated blood products has continued for many years, and I would like to close my remarks by again offering my sympathy and expressing my deep regret at the events, and by saying how sorry I am that this ever happened.

Thomas Docherty: Does the Minister accept that the nervousness that follows her logic of not looking at other countries means that on a whole range of compensation issues the Government are now simply saying, "We are washing our hands of our responsibilities"?

Anne Milton: I am not washing my hands of any responsibility-I am taking full responsibility. I am determined to see this review completed by Christmas within the terms that I have laid out.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) summed up the implications of voting for the motion more eloquently than I ever can. We cannot commit to aligning our compensation payments to those made in Ireland, and we cannot support the motion.
	This debate has been useful in two ways. It has given hon. Members a chance finally to let the depths of this tragedy be heard. It is absolutely dreadful that no time has been found to debate this issue on the Floor of the House before. Secondly, it has enabled us to discuss how we can move forward. I want everyone, including hon. Members and campaigners, to be able to make their views known and know that they will be taken into account. I want the review to be dealt with openly and honestly, with clarity, without party politics, with humility and with empathy.
	I cannot turn the clock back and change events, but I will do what I can in the time I am in office to bring some closure to those affected.

Geoffrey Robinson: I think the whole House would agree that this has been an outstanding debate and has very much justified the new process for nominating Back-Bench business. I hope that in future we will have many such debates on important issues, debated in the same spirit as Members in all parts of the House have shown today in discussing a non-party political issue.
	In essence, the heart of the motion, which I will press, is that an apology is due to the victims. I know that it is very difficult for Governments to give apologies, and the Minister came very close to giving one in saying that she much regretted what had happened. If it had been given in the same spirit as the Prime Minister's statement on the Saville report on Bloody Sunday, it would have been different, but it needed something a little more.
	The second important element at the heart of the motion is the question of compensation. Some Members have said that they cannot vote for the motion because of the reference to Ireland, which is a foreign jurisdiction, and concerns about where we might go from there. However, whatever we had put in the motion, we would have had the same approach from the Government. Members can try to salve their consciences in that way if they want, but the stark fact remains that the victims feel that they need an appropriate minimum level of compensation. They have asked us strongly to stick with the motion and put it to Members. We are going to put a marker down on how we think the Minister's review should come out.
	I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity, and she has a long and distinguished history in the medical profession, but it is hardly an auspicious beginning for the Government to table an amendment intended to void the Back-Bench motion of its substance, then get their Whips up complaining to Mr Speaker about it, especially when it contains a figure that is out by a factor of three. The costs involved would not be more than £3 billion, as we learned from the distinguished hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who is a medical practitioner. He said that they would be more like £1 billion. I cannot imagine how the Government have allowed that figure, which is not just salient but material to the debate, to continue to be discussed without correction.

Anne Milton: rose-

Geoffrey Robinson: I give way to the Minister so that she can explain that to us.

Anne Milton: I have said that I will place in the Library details of how those figures were arrived at. They came about not through a typo in Lord Archer's report but through careful consideration. The comparison with Ireland is difficult to make because the circumstances of those receiving compensation there are different, but that is not the salient point of the motion-it is whether we should align ourselves with a scheme set up by Ireland.

Geoffrey Robinson: That is not the central point of the motion at all; it is utterly irrelevant to the debate. The debate is about justice for the victims of a terrible disaster, and whatever we had put in the motion we would have had the same attitude from the Government, which after all is the one that we have had from all previous Administrations. When I opened the debate I said that that we now had a golden opportunity for the Secretary of State to break with the past. He bears no responsibility for what went on, unlike some of us, including me when I was at the Treasury and the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) when he was at the Department of Health. The Secretary of State had a golden opportunity to put the past behind us and say, "A great injustice was done and a terrible misjudgement was made." Several Members have made it clear that the suffering of the victims and their families goes on, and he should have said that the Government would now take steps to correct it. To say that it would cost £3 billion when it would actually be less than £1 billion is, as I said, hardly an auspicious start.

Anne Milton: May I reiterate that recommendation 6(h) of the Archer report states that
	"payments should be at least the equivalent of those payable under the Scheme which applies at any time in Ireland"?

Geoffrey Robinson: I can assure the Minister that we will not withdraw the motion. It is not encouraging for us to put our faith in her when all she does is hide behind a technicality.

Phillip Lee: I want to be clear about the point I made earlier. I await some clarification on the figures, but I will not support the hon. Gentleman's motion because it states that "a principal recommendation of the...Inquiry" is that compensation is based on the Irish compensation scheme. Am I right?

Geoffrey Robinson: indicated assent.

Phillip Lee: I made it clear that I think we can decouple from that and that we should not pay out on the basis of a life expectancy that was in the 20s before a product came on the market. That is why I will not support him in the Lobby.

Geoffrey Robinson: No motion of the House is ever wholly correct. I have never voted for a motion with which I totally agree- [ Interruption. ] I hate to say it, but we are reverting to party politics on an issue that has nothing to do with it. No motion is ever perfect. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are debating a principle. We should recognise that there should be much more compensation- [ Interruption. ] If Conservative Members think that this is a laughing matter, I will leave it to them and their consciences.

Mark Durkan: Did my hon. Friend note that the Minister said that as well as placing in the Library an explanation of how the figures were arrived at, she would place a copy of an article from  The Irish Times, quoting Brian Cowen, who was then Minister of Health in the Republic? Brian Cowen became Minister of Health in 1997, but the compensation scheme in the south began in 1996 and issued significant payments then. There are misleading versions of what subsequent tribunals said and what was admitted by the Irish Government, but the Irish compensation scheme was not based on that admission of liability or that knowledge.

Geoffrey Robinson: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Perhaps the Minister would like to say whether that is correct. Perhaps she does not know. The debate is degenerating into the to and fro of Opposition against Government interchanges. Let me assure the Health Secretary and the Minister that no one who has taken part in the debate really wants that.
	The simple fact of why we are proposing this motion and resisting the Government amendment is that we are pressing for a recognition that a gross injustice has taken place and that it must be put right. That will involve high levels of compensation. We beg the Government not to believe the figures that are automatically produced to exaggerate the situation.

Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend recall that when many of us were fighting for compensation for retired miners, we were given exactly the same arguments against-for 18 years? The question today is whether we are prepared to wait that long for a solution to this problem.

Geoffrey Robinson: Again, my right hon. Friend makes the telling point that we have waited too long, but the problem will go on for longer. Why is the Minister defending further delay? Why is she defending £3 billion, and why is she giving out incorrect information? Let us not have a debate on that basis. We want Back Benchers in this Back-Bench debate to vote for the motion in my name because it does some justice to those who, for many years, have been condemned to a slow, lingering and very unpleasant death.

Question put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 285.

Question accordingly negatived.

Anti-Slavery Day

Peter Bone: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of Anti-Slavery Day.
	It is probably close to 200 years since this House has debated slavery. As the chairman of the all-party human trafficking group, it is my great pleasure to open this debate, but it should not have been me opening it; it should have been the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). I congratulate her on her pitch to the Backbench Business Committee and her success in securing this debate. However, once she had done so, she was immediately put into the shadow Government. She has risen like a phoenix from the ashes, and is now sitting by the Dispatch Box to answer for the Opposition. I congratulate her not only on securing this debate, but on her promotion.
	William Wilberforce is a name that is synonymous with anti-slavery. In 1807, led by Wilberforce, an Act for the abolition of the slave trade was passed by Parliament. In 1833, the Slavery Abolition Act was passed. Why, therefore, are we here debating slavery, more than 200 years after the abolition of the slave trade? Perhaps we are celebrating the success of William Wilberforce. Or are we here to congratulate ourselves that no slavery remains within the United Kingdom? We cannot do that. Slavery and trafficking are still far too common an occurrence. A frightening statistic is that there are estimated to be more than 27 million slaves in the world today. One in eight of them are in Europe, and at least 10,000 of them are here in the United Kingdom. How can that be true? When I walk around London or my constituency, I do not see slaves sweeping the streets or working in the fields. The fact that the problem is not as visible as it was in the time of William Wilberforce does not mean that it is not as important or as serious.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), but will he join me in paying tribute to the work of Anthony Steen, his predecessor as Chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking, for all his excellent work on bringing to the House's attention the slavery that is human trafficking? I am sure that he was about to mention him in his speech.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend-I shall call him my right hon. Friend today-for that intervention, but he will have to wait just a little longer before I mention the former Member for Totnes.
	The three most lucrative criminal activities in the world are those associated with narcotics and with firearms, and the trafficking of humans. The first two criminal activities are well documented and vast sums of money are rightly invested in catching the criminals involved. Why then is the trafficking of humans-modern-day slavery-so badly documented, and why is so little invested in the fight against it? It takes place on the same scale as narcotics and firearms offences, and that gap needs to be addressed.
	So where are all those slaves, and whom does this affect? In the United Kingdom, the main victims are women and children. They are often tricked into coming to this country, usually with a promise of some sort of job. When they arrive here, they are often locked up and forced to have sex with up to 30 men a day. I shall give the House an example. I met a 14-year-old Kenyan girl who had been trafficked into this country by a middle-aged white man on a passport that did not bear her name and did not have her picture on it. She was taken to Liverpool, locked in a house and forced to have sex with numerous men. Luckily, she escaped after a few days and was helped by a national charity. She was one of the lucky ones, if you can call it lucky to endure what she had had to. She managed to escape, but how many girls do not manage to do so? How many girls are locked in houses such as those while we are debating this issue today? Even if there were just one, that would be one too many, but there is not just one; there are thousands.
	We have some fantastic non-governmental organisations working with trafficked victims, including ECPAT UK, the POPPY project, the Human Trafficking Foundation, the Bromley Trust, the Tudor Trust, and Kalayaan, to name but a few. Their work must not stop. I have one single goal, however: I want all those NGOs and charities to become redundant, because they are no longer needed. That is my aim. As I mentioned, they do fantastic work with trafficked victims, but I believe that prevention is the key.
	How do we prevent human trafficking? That is a very difficult question to answer. I believe that making the public more aware of the issue is a good first step. On 18 October, the UK will celebrate anti-slavery day for the first time. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my former colleague, Anthony Steen, for working tirelessly to make the Anti-slavery Day Act 2010 his lasting legacy to the House. He pioneered an approach to human trafficking that I am very happy to follow. Quite simply, he put modern-day slavery on the parliamentary map. Anti-slavery day will mark out what we all hope will be the beginning of the end of slavery in the United Kingdom and make the public aware of the gravity of the problem.
	What can be done? First, we need to identify victims better. Very few ever approach local authorities to complain, and even if they do, those authorities might not realise that the problem has resulted from trafficking and modern-day slavery. The police are on the front line of trafficking. The individual police officer on the beat is the best and probably the first person to meet a trafficked victim, but does every police officer know what to do, how to help and to whom they should send the victim? We need to help the police and make them more aware of trafficked women. There needs to be a national protocol to help victims.
	We also need to enhance the border control system and stop the traffickers from bringing in the victims in the first place. That is the very best way to end trafficking. The UK must be a country that it is just not worth the traffickers using.

Robert Buckland: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to some of the excellent work done by the Metropolitan police in combating the evil of human trafficking in London? I echo the point I believe he is making well-I seek to reinforce it-about the lack of awareness and training in other police forces across the country. They will often come to dealing with a problem like prostitution without having the wherewithal to understand, albeit with the best will in the world, that it is linked to the evil of slavery and human trafficking.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend puts the case perfectly and I entirely agree with him.
	Returning to the point about making this country one into which traffickers do not want to come, traffickers are interested only in the money. We need to make it so difficult for them that they do not want to try to operate here. That is why the coalition Government's new proposal for a border police provides an opportunity to put trafficking right at the heart of this new initiative. Trafficking must stop, but it will stop only with the help of everyone-here and across the nation. William Wilberforce did not pass the legislation to abolish the slave trade and to abolish slavery for political gain or to achieve votes; he realised there was a fundamental problem that needed to be addressed.

Tony Baldry: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. One difficulty dealing with trafficked women is that they often believe that they are here illegally. They do not go to the police because they are terrified that, if they do, terrible things will happen and the police will prosecute them. What does my hon. Friend think should be the immigration or legal status of people who find themselves trafficked here? Clearly, they are not asylum seekers in the accepted meaning of the term, so how do they fit into the immigration system?

Peter Bone: I am conscious of time and of the fact that many other Members want to contribute to the debate. I shall wind up shortly, but to answer my hon. Friend's point, these people are victims and they should be looked after; there are organisations such as the POPPY project that do look after them. We have a strange system at the moment whereby an adult victim of human trafficking gets better treatment than a child. Unfortunately, I do not have time to go into this further, as I note that so many Members want to speak in the debate.
	Finally, I am ashamed to stand here as a citizen of this great nation and admit that we have failed William Wilberforce. After 200 years, the slave trade is still very much alive. In 200 years' time, I do not want another Member of this House to stand where I am today and admit that he is ashamed that they have failed in what we are trying to achieve today. The first anti-slavery day must mark the start of the decline of modern-day slavery in our country.

David Lammy: Back in 2007, when Labour was in government, it was my great privilege to be asked by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to help the country to prepare for the commemoration of the abolition of the slave trade. That was an important moment for this country, which brought people together across the House and, indeed, across the country to remember another very important moment in our history. Certainly in the cities of London, Liverpool, Bristol and Hull it was a hugely significant event. We recalled, of course, William Wilberforce, but also people such as Thomas Clarkson and Equiano and Ignatio Sancho-black and white men and women who made a difference to bring this awful trade to an end.
	I learnt much that year. I learnt about the many women in Britain who boycotted sugar in order to bring the trade to an end, and the many petitions and marches organised in cities such as Sheffield to say, "Enough is enough". It was an important year. Obviously it was an important year for me personally, because I stand here as the ancestor of those who found themselves- [Interruption.] I am sorry, I mean that they were my ancestors. That is how far back in history I was taken as I spoke. I stand here as the descendant of those who were enslaved.
	As we remind ourselves of what the House has done to bring about the end of that terrible period in our history, we should bear in mind that it is hugely important for us to redouble our efforts in relation to trafficking as it exists in this country and around the world at this time. Tragically, it was in my constituency that the sad death of Victoria Climbié took place in the early part of this century. In the winter of 1999-2000, in a terraced house in Tottenham, she was terribly abused by a supposed aunt who had brought her here from the Ivory Coast. Members will recall her dying, effectively, in a bathtub in that house, having been whipped, chained and terribly physically abused in this country. They will also recall the inquiry, the Laming report, and much that came out of her sad, tragic death.
	That case put a spotlight on the nature of child trafficking in this country. We must all have hoped it would bring trafficking to an end, but it has not brought it to an end. Very sadly, in my constituency today I recall other children who have been trafficked. I think of Tunde Jaji, a young man brought here from Nigeria at the age of five. His case has now become a successful play, which was performed at the Edinburgh festival just this year. It, too, involved terrible abuse by a supposed aunt and her husband, again in the streets of Tottenham, and had a terribly dysfunctional effect on that young man. On this occasion, the story ends with some joy. A teacher at Park View academy, a wonderful woman called Lynne Awbery, took him into her own home, and nourished and supported him. He graduated from Bournemouth university with a fantastic degree in animation, and now dedicates himself to that.
	Such tragic human cases sit alongside our concerns in the House, and in that context it is important for us not just to celebrate an anti-slavery day, but to ensure that we in this country, given our own past, honour and redouble our efforts in relation to this terrible crime. It worries me that the Government have chosen not to ratify the EU directive; I am hugely concerned about the fact that they have exercised the right to opt out on this occasion. I say that because of our own history in this country, and the important position that we have in the world in relation to these matters. It is very hard to encourage other countries to sign the protocol if we do not feel able to do so ourselves. It is very hard to say we are keeping our own house in order if we choose not to ratify. I therefore hope that the Minister might reconsider that position before he comes to wind up the debate.
	I am also concerned that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre is to be abolished, especially given the global nature of this country and the past that I have outlined, including the recent past in my own constituency. Events such as those that took place in my constituency are also happening throughout the rest of the country; estimates of the number of such children who might be here run into the thousands. It is also the wrong time to get rid of that organisation because of all we know about the sex trafficking of women, and younger women in particular. I therefore ask the Minister to reflect on that decision and to think of the great history of this country. Britain is a country that can make a huge difference in the fight against the human trafficking that is taking place across the country and the world. It is estimated that some 27 million people across the world are still in some form of bondage, whether in respect of a trade or domestic slavery.
	This is an important issue therefore, and I ask the Minister to reflect carefully not only on our position in Europe but on the message we send in debating these matters and in choosing how to make a difference through treaties, directives and protocols.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Nigel Evans: Order. Members will have noticed that an eight-minute time limit has now been introduced.

Tom Brake: First, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on the significant and important role she has played in pushing this issue, and also on securing the debate. I also want to echo the comments of various previous speakers about the role Anthony Steen has played in pushing this agenda and bringing it to the notice of Parliament; I agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) that it is a great pity that he was not present today to participate in, and perhaps open, the debate.
	Anti-slavery day provides us with an opportunity to reflect on our ancestors' role in this trade and on the fact that it is still an issue today. We are being reminded of that almost daily. Literally a couple of minutes before the debate started, I had a chance conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) who has just been meeting to discuss the issue of St Helena. Apparently two of what he believes are the largest concentrations of graves of slaves anywhere in the world have just been found on St Helena. The island was used as a transit point and the slaves who had, presumably, died on the boats were offloaded and buried on it. There are events even now that remind us of that past, therefore.
	I also attended an event a couple of weeks ago to do with black history month. One of the speakers pointed out that although she was Jamaican her surname was clearly Scottish, and that that was because her ancestors had been slaves in an area where the landowner and keeper of the slaves-if I can put it that way-was Scottish and had passed on his surname to all the slaves working on his land.
	Even more recently-just a couple of days ago-a Romanian gang was broken up. It is alleged-we will have to wait for the court case verdict-that it was responsible for using children for begging in the UK. Slavery is therefore not only a topic that we need to reflect on historically, but one that is present today.

Stephen Barclay: I thank the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for drawing attention to the work of Thomas Clarkson, of Wisbech in my constituency, who did so much to gather the evidence on which the case was put by William Wilberforce in this place. Does the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) agree that one of the problems-one of the pockets-is to be found within the diplomatic community? Although this is a complex area in terms of the legal framework, diplomatic immunity should not be grounds for allowing conditions akin to slavery to exist.

Tom Brake: That is a very pertinent and topical point, although it might be slightly beyond my pay grade to respond to it on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Perhaps the Minister may use his response as an opportunity to put across the Government's perspective on that point.
	Many forms of slavery are alive and well today, including bonded labour. People can enter bonded labour for something as simple as the cost of medicine for a sick child, and it then locks them into providing labour free or in exchange for food and shelter. That can be labour that they have to provide 365 days a year and it can be impossible for them to get out of that arrangement. As many hon. Members will know, Dalits fall into that category. Those are peoples in both India and other parts of the subcontinent who can end up in lifelong servitude, which often gets passed down through generations.

Tony Baldry: How does my hon. Friend suggest that we deal with that? Hundreds of thousands of people are involved in bonded labour in India, but India is a mature democracy, although one to which we still provide some development assistance. How and where does he suggest that we exert influence to help bring about the end of bonded labour in mature democracies such as India?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The only tool at our disposal is the one that we are using at this moment: raising the issue and using that as a gentle encouragement to the Indian Government, and other Governments in the subcontinent, to respond to these challenges.
	The time available does not allow an in-depth discussion about trafficking, although we had a fairly full debate on it just a couple of days ago. Inevitably, and correctly, that debate touched on the EU directive, and I simply wish to restate what I said then. I welcome the fact that the Government are reviewing the directive, but I hope that if it is clear at the end of that review process that the directive pushes us significantly beyond where we are on tackling human trafficking, the Government will then opt in to the directive.
	In order to allow others their opportunity to speak in the debate, I shall finish by discussing just one other important point-the legal framework to tackle slavery in the UK. It is only this year that we have legislated to deal with an offence of forced labour or domestic servitude. At least we now have clarity, because the legislation is in place. Is the Minister in a position to tell the House whether there have been any prosecutions or convictions under that legislation, which has recently come into force? People will want to express emotional views in this debate, so I wish to conclude simply by saying that it is regrettable that we are having to have an anti-slavery day debate because slavery is alive and well in the world. I hope that in future years-perhaps a number of years from now-such a debate will not be necessary.

Lisa Nandy: Like the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), I come to this debate very pleased that we are marking the end of one of the most horrific practices in legal history, but concerned that a significant problem still exists in the UK, with large numbers of women, boys and girls still sold into slavery in this country every year.
	Over the past five years, at the Children's Society, I have had the privilege of working with some of the remarkable children who have survived this horrific practice. Most were brought into the UK to be sold for sex, forced labour, domestic slavery or enforced begging. They were boys as well as girls and nearly all of them had experienced a combination of mental, physical and sexual violence.
	This is a hidden crime, so it is incredibly difficult to persuade people that it still goes on. I can say to hon. Members that I am absolutely certain that this is happening in my Wigan constituency at this very minute, and in all constituencies across the country. I am pleased that so many Members have turned out to mark such an important debate.
	The previous Government made significant attempts to tackle the problem and I want to pay tribute to the work that was done, particularly the ratification of the Palermo protocol and the Council of Europe convention. They were huge steps forward. The decision not to opt in to the EU directive was and remains the wrong decision, and I hope that the present Government will think again on that point. The Minister, for whom I have considerable respect, is known to be a humane man and is interested in this area. I hope that he will bring us some good news on that point.
	It is simply not true that we already comply with the European directive on trafficking in human beings. Let me give hon. Members an example of a 17-year-old young man whom I have met and worked with. He was brought into the UK and forced to work illegally in a cannabis factory. After several years of that, he was picked up in a police raid at the age of 17. After several years of working in the most appalling conditions, with no natural daylight, subjected to cannabis fumes daily, he had significant mental health problems, as one would expect. Yet he was prosecuted for working illegally and for documentation offences. When I worked at the Children's Society, I was told over and over again, along with colleagues from ECPAT UK-which stands for End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and the Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes-and other tremendous organisations, that this problem simply does not exist, yet every day we were seeing for ourselves that it did. I am sure that it still does.
	When I came across the young man in my example, he was serving time in a young offenders institution and had, thankfully, come to the attention of the British Refugee Council, which was able to find him a good lawyer who got him out. I am outraged that that vulnerable young man should have been subjected to such treatment at the hands of the state-at our hands. I cannot help but think that had that young man been British the response would have been quite different. It is unthinkable that a child or young person who comes to the state and alleges such appalling abuse should be treated in such a manner. Far too often these children are seen as perpetrators rather than victims, and as immigrants rather than children. We all-on both sides of the House-should seek to change that.
	The EU directive sets out explicitly that it should be possible not to prosecute victims. That would be a major step forward in our treatment of these children. My experience of working with children who have been subjected to slavery is that it is often simply not recognised that they are vulnerable, particularly when they are older-when they are 17, for example. They do not look like the very vulnerable young people they are, so they are not treated as such.
	I have been told over years and years that we can achieve the standards set out in the EU directive simply by changing our working practices. That might be true, but it has not happened. While it has not happened, children like the young man I have talked about are subjected to further harm by the state, because we simply have not got this right.
	Let me give one more example before I let other Members speak. I have worked with very young children-aged eight or nine-who are adamant that the person exploiting them is their uncle, their daddy or some other relative who has their best interests at heart. When young children have been deceived in that way, we have a huge problem. Their lawyer is duty bound to act on the instructions that that child has given. The EU directive sets out very clearly that child victims must have a guardian to represent them in the courts, who would be able to instruct the lawyer on their behalf. Without that measure, which we have singularly failed to introduce-and in so failing, we have failed those children-we will not see prosecutions and we will never bring to justice the evil people who are doing so much damage to children in our constituencies.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Nigel Evans: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for shortening her remarks. As we can all see, many hon. Members want to contribute to this debate, so the time limit is being shortened to six minutes.

Andrew Selous: It is a good sign that you have had to shorten the time limit, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am pleased that so many hon. Members are interested in the subject.
	The scale of this worldwide problem has not sunk in. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) opened the debate by saying that 27 million people are in some form of slavery around the world, which is just less than half the population of the United Kingdom. That is a truly shocking statistic.
	Some passion has been expended in this House this week, whether on the date of a referendum, the reform of housing benefit, the European Union budget, or contaminated blood. This subject, above all, is one on which we should expend considerable passion. We should state how outrageous it is that 200 years after Wilberforce got rid of the visible slave trade, that cruel and inhumane form of treatment of our fellow human beings has crept back.
	We are discussing a truly global phenomenon, which is happening not only in this country and in Europe but around the world. Last night I trawled the internet and picked out relevant press cuttings from the past two days. There are press reports about trafficking across east Africa, and countries such as Tanzania, Kenya and Rwanda are forming a regional network to do something about it.
	A national action plan has been established in Greece, where the situation is relevant to this country. Children and young people, often young girls, from Romania, Albania, Ukraine, Moldova, Bulgaria and Russia are often tempted to travel to Athens. Their families may be in economic difficulties, and they are lured to Athens by the prospect of a better life having been told that they will be working as, for example, a hairdresser. They are taken to Athens before being sent to Amsterdam, London, Hamburg or another great European city, where they end up working in brothels as captives. It is good to see Greece taking the matter seriously.
	In Malaysia nine people have been arrested in the past two days, seven of whom are immigration officials. I ask the Minister whether we are checking our staff to ensure that they are not complicit with gangs.
	Those examples illustrate that we are discussing a worldwide problem, but at the same time it is a local problem that happens in our constituents' streets. We know that brothels operate in private houses; we know that people are being used for domestic servitude in private houses; and we know that people are being forced to work as bonded labour in businesses that are close to us and to our constituents. We can all do our bit, because we can all be eyes and ears. We all need to look out and help the police and the authorities. Even buying Fairtrade chocolate provides us with an assurance that the chocolate that we are eating has not been produced by children who have been forced to work on cocoa plantations in Africa.
	Prevention is obviously better than cure. How much public education and awareness raising is being done in the source countries from which people are being trafficked? How engaged are the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development in trying to spread public education and awareness, so that those young girls realise that there is great danger in being lured to be a hairdresser in Europe, and that it will probably not end up that way.
	As Members of Parliament we all have a close relationship with our local newspapers, yet virtually all those newspapers-this is certainly true of the five newspapers in my constituency-carry advertisements for "adult services", as they are euphemistically called.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman mentions advertisements in newspapers. Will he praise Newsquest, the newspaper publishing organisation, which has just banned such advertisements?

Andrew Selous: The hon. Lady is obviously a mind reader, to add to her other talents, because that is exactly what I was about to say. The Newsquest group has set an example, and I ask all hon. Members to ask the editors of their local papers to follow that example. That is something practical that we can do. This is not just about asking the Minister to do things; we can do things in our constituencies and we can get our constituents involved in doing something.
	Can we have a minimum sentence for traffickers? Diplomats have been mentioned briefly. Any diplomat who is found to be involved in human trafficking should not have the right to be an accredited diplomat at the Court of St James's, but should be expelled forthwith. I think that that suggestion would find wide support in the House.
	We desperately need better co-ordination between the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary, because these cases often fall down. We need the Ministry of Justice to get the police and the CPS together to work out how we can have more success with getting convictions, of which there have been pitifully few in the UK. That is not for lack of trying, through legislation, by many of us in this Parliament. There is a real problem with things not working as well as they could.
	We also need much better liaison between the police and local authorities. That is working well in some places, such as with West Sussex county council, Operation Paladin at Heathrow airport, and at St Pancras with the Eurostar. There are very good relations between the police and social services in that regard. In Westminster, too, there is a very good protocol between the police and the council on forced marriage and honour-based violence. They are looking into incorporating that further in relation to trafficking in connection with the MARAC-multi-agency risk assessment conference-procedures.
	This is a big issue and a worthy cause for all hon. Members to pursue throughout their time in Parliament. We are called to this place to pursue big issues, and there can hardly be a bigger issue than this. Let me close with the words of Margaret Mead:
	"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Keith Vaz: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). He is right that this is a big issue. The fact that it unites my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for South West Bedfordshire and others is a real tribute to the work that Anthony Steen pioneered in his many years in the House of Commons.
	I have been here for 23 years; others have been here for as long as I have while others still have been here for a shorter period. What a legacy for the House and the country was Anthony Steen's private Member's Bill, which had the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House and produced the marking of anti-slavery day. I wish that he were here. Perhaps he is-perhaps, in a moment, he is going to pop in to tell us that we have gone on for too long, and should hear the benefit of his expertise. I am glad that his expertise remains in this House, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has said. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wellingborough for picking up this torch; he will become just as distinguished in his time in ensuring that this remains at the forefront of concerns among parliamentarians.
	Of course, this is an important issue. The Select Committee on Home Affairs conducted a very long inquiry into human trafficking, which lasted a year. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington was one of the members of that Committee, which travelled to Russia and Ukraine. We took evidence from all the projects that have been mentioned today and we found, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan has pointed out, that victims were reluctant to come forward. We found out stunning statistics about what is the second-biggest illegal activity in the world after drugs. It is a billion-pound illegal industry, but it is very difficult to get people to come forward. That is why it is crucial that we have at our disposal the ability to track down the people traffickers.
	I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said about the EU directive. It is very important that the Minister should reflect on this issue in the coming weeks and months and that we sign up to the directive. We cannot be kept apart from the rest of Europe when we need the support of other European countries to achieve the good and laudable aims that the current Government have in this area and that the previous Government certainly had.
	I want to raise with the Minister three practical issues that will help us to achieve that aim. First, the Home Affairs Committee raised with the previous Prime Minister our concern about funding for the Metropolitan police's people trafficking unit, which was disbanded nine months ago. Despite that, we have had successes, such as during Operation Golf this week, when people were found to be trafficking in central London. The Met should keep such relationships going with police forces in other parts of the world-in that case, for example, in Romania. The funding and the provision of resources for that unit are extremely important, because we require expertise.
	Secondly, the UK Human Trafficking Centre was moved, as the Minister knows, away from independence and into the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which will now be abolished and form part of the new national crime agency. I urged the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice yesterday, during a debate about policing, to pause before the Government decide how the centre will sit within the national crime agency. The point about such organisations is that they have expertise beyond policing and act as a centre to co-ordinate many people and professions. It is vital that we retain such activity. I hope that the Minister before us will take up that issue with his ministerial colleague.
	My final point is about the one issue that the Committee raised in its most recent report, because it is still a concern. There is no Europe-wide mechanism that brings together the origin, transition and destination countries of those who are trafficked. There is no such organisation. That work is done through conferences and meetings, and sometimes the European Union decides that it wants to be involved, but there needs to be a stand-alone organisation-a structure-to share good practice. When someone from Moldova travels through Greece, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire said, and ends up in Amsterdam, Bedford, Leicester, Wigan or wherever, they need to be tracked. That is not happening, but we have to ensure that those who are responsible for trafficking are prosecuted, because our record on such prosecutions is pretty bad.
	I am absolutely delighted by the presence in the House of so many right hon. and hon. Members. We must keep debating the issue, because that is the only way in which we will effect real change.

Justin Tomlinson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this crucial debate. It is a credit to the decision to introduce Back-Bench business, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) opened it with great distinction.
	I share the concern that there are no robust estimates for the number of victims of trafficking in the UK. Having the figures for victims of trafficking is fundamental to raising awareness of the issue and ensuring that human trafficking is given due attention by local police forces. Moreover, without accurate data, support services cannot be properly planned. I therefore believe that the UK Human Trafficking Centre needs to do more in that area.
	The introduction of the national referral mechanism in April 2009 has gone some way towards recognising victims of trafficking. However, I am concerned that only 361 individuals were accepted as victims of trafficking in the mechanism's first year, given that the estimated figure for such individuals is about 10 times that number. The dominance of the immigration authorities in the assessment and administration of the national referral mechanism is also a concern, as it emphasises the victims' immigration status and inappropriately associates them with illegal immigration, as the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) clearly highlighted.
	Although the exact figures for victims are not available, there have been six arrests for trafficking offences in Wiltshire, which includes my constituency, North Swindon. Human trafficking does not have borders; it is a problem for the whole of the UK and it must be addressed as such, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said. More needs to be done to support victims of human trafficking, and I shall focus on that point.
	I have been incredibly impressed by the work of the homeless women's charity, Eaves. The POPPY project in London, which it runs, is invaluable in providing safety and support through accommodation, counselling, legal advice and outreach programmes. It provides 50 beds for victims of sex trafficking and nine beds for victims of domestic slavery, with a current occupancy rate of 100%. I welcome the further expansion that is occurring in London, Sheffield and Cardiff.
	However, I remain concerned about whether victims from my constituency will have access to support and security services of that level. All too often, the victims are charged, then effectively released straight back into the arms of the gangs rather than being treated as victims. It is therefore vital that the new national co-ordinator sets out consistent standards of care, builds capacity, and raises awareness with local agencies and funders. Having been rescued from their living nightmare, all too often only temporary help is provided to them-a crying shame for these often exceptionally determined individuals, who rightly want to get their lives back on track and are hindered by their lack of formal education, qualifications and opportunities.
	To tackle this, Eaves, along with partners Imperial college and the Women and Work initiative, has launched a scheme aimed at helping victims back into the workplace. HERA-Her Equality, Rights, and Autonomy-offers women from the POPPY project entrepreneurial skills and mentoring from some of the UK's most successful business women and men, and aims to give them the life skills and confidence they need to set up their own businesses or get into work. In many cases, the victims arrived in the UK highly educated, and through this scheme go on to further or higher education, more often than not with an interest in human rights law, and 25% even go on to set up their own business.
	It was a great privilege to meet one of the founders of the scheme, Simon Stockley, who kindly set out three brief recent examples of where this support and training has made a real difference. First, a Russian lady has set up a successful Russian specialist bakery. Secondly, a west African lady has set up a fashion label, designing and making clothes. Finally, a Moldovan lady, with mentoring from a senior member of Saatchi and Saatchi, was not only able to secure work at a large H&M store but is now the manager. These real-life examples show just how important it is to provide these opportunities nationwide.
	We are rightly stepping up our game to rescue victims; let us not then fail them. We have seen that by empowering the victims and restoring their confidence, we are providing an opportunity to start a new life. I urge the Minister to do all he can to ensure that victims have access to the support that they require and rightly deserve.

Michael Connarty: We should be focusing not so much on what is happening in the UK as the fact that there are still 27 million people in some form of slavery throughout the world. We should look seriously at the heritage left behind by Anthony Steen. He was not talking about the UK; he never talked about the UK. As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, he travelled around Europe urging other Parliaments to set up similar organisations and to get their Governments focused on the problem, whether they were in the transit countries, the departure countries or the countries where the criminal gangs organised.
	It is interesting to look back in history. Oddly enough, the story of Oliver Twist is based on factual historical records of the trafficking of Italian children who were scooped up in the villages and promised jobs, and then brought to the UK to be thieves and robbers in the Paddington area of London. There was never a Jewish Fagin organising that-there was an Italian gangmaster and an Italian gang.
	This is not just something that happens locally, but, as we have heard, it is happening locally in people's constituencies, and in mine-two brothels were broken up, and trafficked women were found in both. Positive Action in Housing, based in Glasgow, does wonderful work in Scotland. Many Members have spoken about their own local organisations that are helping people who are then released from such bondage-not just sexual bondage, but low pay or poverty pay. A Chinese gentleman came to see me after I spoke at the annual general meeting of Positive Action in Housing. He had been moved from one Chinese restaurant to another, throughout the whole of the UK, for nine and a half years, and told that if he ever went to see anyone he would be sent back to China. It is going on all the time. Sixteen children were recently rescued in London. In Scotland, in the three months up until August, the newspapers reported that 18 children were found in some sort of exploitation.
	I urge us, as a Parliament, to look wider than we are at the moment. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is not completely carrying on the heritage of Anthony Steen if he does not focus on broadening the outlook. We should stop trying to throw a ring around the UK, and we should expand our movement outside.

Peter Bone: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, of course-the ring needs to be around everywhere. I will let him into a secret. Anthony Steen and his Human Trafficking Foundation are working with the all-party group on human trafficking every week, and we intend to set up all-party groups across the whole of Europe, as Anthony wants.

Michael Connarty: Sign me up to that.
	I wish to ask the Minister-I have never yet heard a decent reply to this question, including when I wrote to the Prime Minister in September-why the Government are not clear that we need to sign up to the EU directive on human trafficking. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said that we need a Europe-wide organisation, and that is on offer in the directive. It is not a protocol, and it would be binding on all countries. We have sections 57 to 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but they are not capable of dealing with cross-border trafficking in the EU.
	The EU directive would give us extra powers. It would give us not just the power but the duty to pursue any UK citizen, or anyone habitually resident in the UK, who was involved in trafficking anywhere in the world, with the support of the EU. It would be our jurisdiction, so we could do our duty by people who were trafficked and enslaved. It would also give us the option-it would be a power, not a compulsion-to decide to pursue anyone habitually resident in the UK who was involved in organising people trafficking, which can lead to slavery, outside the UK.
	I give the following example quite seriously, not to diminish the terrible thing that happened to the McCann family. If Madeleine McCann were an adult young woman who had been trafficked out of Portugal by a gang of people who were not in the UK, we would not have had the power to take jurisdiction. It is true that we can go to Interpol. I went to Portugal during that terrible time, as the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, and we met the policeman sent from Lisbon to try to pick up the pieces of the local police's terrible approach immediately after the loss of Madeleine McCann. We realised the police's inadequacy, but although we had liaison officers we did not have the ability to send in the Met to do the job properly. We could have that power for an adult if we signed up to the EU directive. That is its greatest attraction to me-we would have a duty and responsibility to people in this country who may end up being trafficked.
	At the moment, young women and men affected travel around and live in other parts of Europe. They do not necessarily always live in the UK. If they are trafficked out of other countries by someone who is not a UK resident, at the moment we have no jurisdiction. That is a very strong argument for the directive.
	The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) came nearest to expressing the aspiration that existed when the decision to mark anti-slavery day was voted through in the House. It is a worldwide business that we must fight against. We must recognise the clear link with organised criminal gangs in the advanced economies of the world, particularly in the EU states and those around them. We must do everything we can to be vigilant locally. All the organisations that have been mentioned deserve support, and we must try to build an anti-slavery, anti-trafficking alliance at Government and non-governmental organisation level. I hope that the Minister, and eventually the Prime Minister, will recognise that one major step will be taken if we sign up to the EU directive on human trafficking and join that battle properly.

Stephen Phillips: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). We sit together on the European Scrutiny Committee and also share a common interest in the subject of this debate.
	This is an historic and significant debate, and it is pleasing to see that so many right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute. I welcome the advent of anti-slavery day, even though I was not in the House when the Anti-Slavery Day Act 2010 went through, not least because it is an important tool in bringing these issues into the limelight and giving them the prominence that they deserve. The one thing that is absolutely clear from the debate is that slavery is alive and well in our society and throughout the world. It is therefore right that the House discusses it. I should like to echo other hon. Members in paying tribute to Mr Anthony Steen, who is a great loss to the House. It is a great shame that he cannot be here to make his own speech today.
	The simple fact is that it remains unacceptable 200 years after Wilberforce fought so long, so admirably and so hard against slavery that we live in a society in which slavery endures. It is perhaps not the same as in his time, but it is no less deplorable. In the 18th century, slavery was part of a distasteful and distorted economy, and was witnessed in the full light of day. Now, as the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said, it is to a large extent invisible, hidden and underground. It is a hidden abuse of people who more often than not simply cannot speak up for themselves.
	Of course, slavery surfaces from time to time. Sex trafficking is the crime that most often captures the media headlines, but earlier this week, Romanian children who were forced into working on the streets of the capital like Fagin's gang were rescued by Operation Golf. I pay tribute to the Metropolitan police for their work on that. I hope the Crown can in due course mount successful prosecutions of those responsible.
	It is worth remembering, however, that that is not an easy task. The women and children involved are often a long way from home. They do not speak the language and are away from such family as they have, and the authorities can seem remote and unhelpful. Getting valuable witness statements from those individuals-most often, it is women and children-is very difficult, particular given what they have suffered. The prosecution rate for such offences is woefully low. Will the Minister say what the Government intend to do about that? We have the laws, as has been said, but we do not seem to enforce them to their fullest extent. That might be a problem of mechanics, but I should like to know what the Government will do.
	I also want to mention briefly, if I may, an issue alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), namely the plight of domestic staff working in conditions that amount to slavery right here in London for embassy staff protected by diplomatic privilege. Unlike those on ordinary domestic visas, those on diplomatic domestic visas are not permitted to change jobs. They are stuck in their employment and with their employer, and essentially have no legal status. They do not and cannot go to the police if they suffer abuse. It is about time the Government dealt with that. The House is entitled to ask why we cannot get rid of those visas and issue normal domestic visas to those workers, which would enable them to have the same access to help as anybody else who needs it. What is the Government's position on that?
	I end simply by reminding the House what Wilberforce himself said in the House of Commons in May 1789-of course, that was not in this building. He said that
	"the nature and all the circumstances of this trade are now laid open to us; we can no longer plead ignorance, we cannot evade it; it is now an object placed before us, we can not pass it; we may spurn it, we may kick it out of our way, but we cannot turn aside so as to avoid seeing it; for it is brought now so directly before our eyes that this House must decide, and must justify to all the world, and to their own consciences, the rectitude of the grounds and principles of their decision."-[ Parliamentary History, 12 May 1789; Vol. XXVIII, c. 63.]
	We are simply debating anti-slavery day today, but the decision for the future is whether we are prepared to continue to accept situations of slavery which pertain to our society some 200 years after Wilberforce and his colleagues successfully fought the battle to end slavery in this country.

Alison McGovern: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), who introduced the historical context of the debate. I listened carefully to other hon. Members speak about the current situation, which is vital, but I want to say more about the historical context.
	I am from Merseyside. Members may be aware that Liverpool was at one time described as the slavery capital of the world. No one associated with the city has any pride in that, but it must be acknowledged. Ships out of Liverpool carried about 1.5 million enslaved Africans on some 5,000 slave ship voyages. In 2007, I was proud that National Museums Liverpool opened the international slavery museum on 23 August, the anniversary of the Haiti uprising, when enslaved workers fought for their liberty. The museum is only metres from the docks that once repaired the slave ships. At the time, Sir Peter Moores rightly remarked that we can come to terms with our past only by accepting it, and to accept it we need knowledge of what actually happened. There is a lesson in that about what is happening today, and I am pleased that the House is having this debate to bring to light important issues such as trafficking and bonded labour, which still exist in the world.
	The resistance of enslaved Africans and the actions of abolitionists in Britain ended the transatlantic slave trade in 1807, but in the north-west of England the cotton trade maintained links with slavery around the world for many years afterwards. We need to recognise our history and acknowledge that while our predecessors as Members of Parliament abolished the trade, the conduct of members of the public was even more astounding-another lesson from history for us today. In 1788, 100 petitions were presented to this House on the subject of slavery, and 2,000 people from Sheffield-or 22% of the adult population-signed one of the petitions. In 1972, 519 petitions were presented and every county in England was represented and stood up for enslaved people around the world. One in 10 of the adult population was involved-an amazing aspect of our history that should be recognised. The overwhelming opinion was that slavery was an utter offence to human dignity.
	When we discuss this issue, we need to reflect on what caused the uprising of emotion and outrage. It included the testimony of freed slaves, published in this country. Olaudah Equiano is probably the most famous example. He was born in Benin and later captured and sold several times by slave traders. Eventually, he came to this country, where he bought his way out of slavery for £40. He published his autobiography in 1789 and brought to the public's attention the horror of the middle passage. I need not remind Members of the conditions of those voyages on which people could be thrown overboard with little regard for their safety. The eyes of the British people were opened to the reality of slavery and they would not stand for it. That shows us about the morality that we all share. We care about each other and cannot stand by when others face pain and indignity. That is what makes change happen-human compassion and knowledge about what goes on.
	Today has been important because we have reaffirmed our commitment as parliamentarians not to stand by in the face of human indignity. The POPPY project and its important work have already been mentioned. It has helped 700 women so far and we need to support its work. I look forward to the Minister's remarks on how we can ensure that the victims of trafficking in this country are treated with the utmost respect and care, and enabled to find a way out.
	The historical context of the debate is important. We need to enliven public outrage and think globally. As some people said at the time, and as we know now, charity and compassion do not begin at home. No matter where human indignity exists, it is everyone's responsibility to promote action to change it.

Neil Carmichael: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who made an important point about the anger and determination of people 200 years ago to do something about slavery, and about how we need a similar fury now about the outrages we are aware of here. Funnily enough, my constituency played a major part in the abolition of slavery in so far as one of my predecessors promoted legislation to abolish it in the 1830s, and an archway was erected to celebrate the end of slavery-it is one of the few such archways still remaining. The sad thing is that it celebrates the end of something that has not quite ended, and we need to bear that in mind in this very important debate. We need to excite that sense of fury and anger about slavery.
	I want to make several points. The first is that we have to get a measure of the problem, and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) did exactly that. The fact that 27 million people across the globe are in slavery is simply outrageous. We cannot tolerate it.
	My second point is about the importance of border control. I hope that the Minister will highlight how that will be strengthened. It is critical that we tackle border control issues, and it is very important that we deliver meaningful results.
	The Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), put his finger on an important point. It is not just that they have come here that matters; where they came from and how they got here also matter. That international dimension needs a focus too, because we cannot just sit here on an island and say, "We're doing okay. How about the rest of you?" We need to take an international attitude. At the end of the day, as recipients of the problem, even if we deal with specific cases more satisfactorily, a threat will still remain, because people will still be trafficking from other places. We therefore need to use our influence to tackle the source of the problem and those who traffic.
	That brings me to the EU directive against trafficking mentioned by several people today. As I understand it, we will be reviewing our position once that directive is confirmed. Furthermore, of course, we are signatories to the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking, which is robust in its attitude. However, I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the EU directive, because if we are serious about taking action, we need to consider its impact.
	I want to talk about the rule of law. A lot of people have talked about the legislation and measures already in place. Yes, they probably are, and we may need to strengthen some of them, but in this case the rule of law is being flagrantly abused by many. It is, therefore, a question of enforcement as well. We have to get the question of enforcement right, because, at the end of the day, a country such as ours should be able to pack a punch in that respect.

Angie Bray: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should applaud an initiative by the Metropolitan police to press for legislation that would allow editors who continue to publish sex adverts that can then be linked to trafficking to be arrested and tried in court? Does he agree with the words of the deputy Mayor for London responsible for policing? He said:
	"We don't allow drug dealers to advertise in newspapers so why should we allow traffickers to advertise prostitution?"

Neil Carmichael: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for-Enfield?

Stephen Pound: Ealing-always Ealing!

Neil Carmichael: Oh, yes, and I know where the hon. Gentleman comes from too.
	I shall finish with this point. None of us in this House can be confident of our own dignity while others are entrapped or enslaved and therefore do not have theirs.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Nigel Evans: Order. The wind-ups will begin at 5.38 pm.

Margot James: Before I was elected to this place, I was vice-chairman of my party for women. In that capacity I worked quite closely with the POPPY project, and also with the Eaves housing group, of which many Members have spoken highly. I echo those views, and would like to pay a special tribute to one of its founders, Denise Marshall. She has worked on the issue unstintingly over many years, going to places that I would not dare go myself, on behalf of the cause. Indeed, she has been awarded a CBE for her efforts. I would like to share a few of the learnings that I have picked up from Denise and her colleagues on this terrible problem, and to compliment everybody involved in getting anti-slavery day on to the statute book. It is so important that we have these hooks to remind the general public and all the law enforcement agencies of the terrible problem that still blights our country.
	Many Members have spoken about the international dimension. I would like to mention another dimension. Tragically, trafficking is not confined to a cross-border business. I am afraid that I hear increasing numbers of examples of intra-country trafficking. I should remind Members that children, and in particular young girls, who are residents of care homes in their constituencies are particularly vulnerable to the ruthless and evil people who try to get them out of that home environment, so that they can be trafficked to another part of the UK where they will be more difficult to identify and put to work in the evil, forced sex trade.
	Another matter that I would like to pick up on was raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). He talked about the need for expertise in the enforcement agencies and the concerns of some Members, on both sides of the House, about the dilution of some of our specialist policing forces. As he said, there is undoubtedly a need for concentrations of expertise. That is most important. However, no matter how much expertise we can afford to fund, there will never be enough. There will always be a need for good, solid training of the wider police and of enforcement agency staff and personnel. As hon. Members have said, we are talking about a problem that can arise in any of the constituencies that we represent. Nowhere is safe, so we need to ensure that all the police are trained, and not just the specialist forces.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry that not every Member could get in, but that shows the interest in the subject matter of this debate.

Fiona Mactaggart: I know that Members will forgive me if I do not respond or refer to every contribution, but what is striking about this debate-a debate that I am rather proud to have provoked from the Back Benches, and which I am now responding to from the Front Bench-is the extent of concern and the shared views across those on all Benches. Ten months after he introduced his Bill-now the Anti-Slavery Day Act 2010-I think that Anthony Steen would be proud that we are about to celebrate anti-slavery day. That must be some kind of record for implementing a policy.
	I want to focus on an issue that Members on both sides of the House have raised, which is the EU directive. The Minister has said that the Government's position on the matter will be reviewed, and I am grateful for that. I hope that he will forgive me for being boring about this subject-for continuing to persist with it-because he will recall that his party did exactly the same in opposition. Indeed, I recall the Prime Minister-then the Leader of the Opposition-claiming credit in March 2007 for the Government's signing of the convention, when he asked a question about it across this Dispatch Box and the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said, as I recall, "We're doing it on Friday." The argument that he made at that time still holds: this is an international problem, and we need the best possible international collaboration between the countries that create movements of people across borders and those that receive them. I hope that the review will be concluded speedily, and that we will opt into the directive. Members have made the need for that clear today. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) also explained in very human terms why we cannot possibly opt out of providing guardians for children.
	My next concern is about policing. There is a risk that centres of expertise, such as the one that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) has just mentioned, could become diluted by being merged with other institutions. I recall the words of the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), when he was the Opposition spokesman, in the debate on Anthony Steen's Bill. He said:
	"The existence of one central point of information on trafficking has clearly been valuable to police forces, the Crown Prosecution Service and other agencies."-[ Official Report, 5 February 2010; Vol. 505, c. 555.]
	He was talking about the UK Human Trafficking Centre, and told the House how such centres of excellence improved the quality of policing. I am worried that we now risk losing some of that specialist focus. We began to sense that risk when the UKHTC was merged with the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and further mergers into the proposed national crime agency and a move to elsewhere in the country will mean that it will continue to exist. The widely respected director of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, Jim Gamble, told the Home Affairs Committee recently that he believed he would be "fighting for airtime" in a national crime agency.
	We need to focus on how we can improve the policing of human trafficking. It is not enough to depend on a specialist border force, because many trafficked people are unaware that they are being trafficked when they cross the border. At that point, the trafficking experience has not kicked in. We need all-through expertise in order to police the issue properly. I am deeply concerned that we are about to see a cut in the number of police officers, and, without these centres of expertise, we might find ourselves policing the problem much less effectively.
	I urge the Minister to make another commitment, which involves one of the requirements of the EU directive. We need to lead the training of police officers in the policing of this issue. We know that, in the best forces, where there is effective collaboration between the police and social services, we can make a real difference on this issue. If there were a proper cascading of policy and information, so that every police organisation could be at the level of the best, we could make better progress on this matter. I hope that the Minister will tell us that that is going to happen.
	The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) told the House that the national referral mechanism was overloaded. I heard from Kalayaan just two days ago how often it has to hesitate before referring someone to the national referral mechanism because to do so would be too burdensome, because its client would not be guaranteed advocacy, or because the bureaucracy involved would add to the stress being experienced by an already-stressed person. We need to ensure that the UK Border Agency's domination of the processes is squeezed out, as the hon. Gentleman rightly suggested, and that we use the voices of the voluntary sector and of those people who have advocated on behalf of trafficked women and children. Of course, it is overwhelmingly women and children-people who are already vulnerable-who are the victims of this vile trade. We should therefore use this expertise to protect women and children.
	I hope that the Minister will also be able to assure us about prosecution policy-that there will be more prosecutions for trafficking crime, that they will be effectively conducted and that specialist prosecutors who understand the experience of the vulnerable people who have been trafficked will be used. I would like the Minister to inform us whether the offence of paying for sex with someone who has been subject to exploitation is being effectively prosecuted, as I am anxious that it is not. Will he also tell us how many prosecutions are happening, as they provide an important mechanism to prevent trafficking by reducing the demand for it?
	After all, Anthony Steen passed his Bill and we are marking anti-slavery day because we want slavery and trafficking to come to an end. We have talked about ways of prosecuting those engaged in this vile trade and we have talked about ways of protecting the victims, but what we really need to do is to prevent it. To achieve that, we need effective international collaboration and effective international policing, and we need to ensure that the people who have been trafficked are not trafficked again.
	One of the most horrific things about the victims is how vulnerable they are to being re-trafficked. Many trafficked people, after they have been rescued, are re-trafficked. We know, for example, that trafficked children brought into this country to work in cannabis farms-we have heard something about that experience today-who are taken into local authority care usually, and I mean usually, disappear within weeks or months into the hands of their traffickers. If they are rescued again, they disappear again. It is unacceptable-and I believe every Member of this House believes it is unacceptable-for that to continue to occur.
	I believe that the European directive provides a quite powerful mechanism that can be used to help in those circumstances by providing each child with a guardian. I want the Minister to sign up to the directive and I hope that he is going to tell us that he is taking steps to do so. If he does not sign up to it, however, the least he can do is to ensure that he really does what I am sure the Prime Minister believed we were really doing, which is doing everything in that directive.
	I have been a Home Office Minister and, frankly, I know that Home Office officials have form in telling Ministers, "We are already doing that, Minister." I believe that this Minister might have the guts to say to those officials, "Actually, show me how. Here is the provision in the directive; show me precisely how it works. If you cannot show me precisely how, let us implement a policy to do it." I am scared that, with the cuts in policing and other expenditure cuts, even the protection that we are currently able to offer women and children will be watered down. I hope, however, that this Minister will not let that happen.

Damian Green: I thank the Backbench Business Committee and, indeed, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). She instituted the debate from the Back Benches, as she said, but she was miraculously and rightly transformed to the Front Bench before this debate, so she can now reply on behalf of the Opposition. In listening to this debate, I have been struck not only by how passionate, but by how erudite many speeches have been. There is a huge amount of expertise in the House on this vital issue, as Members of all parties have said, and I will certainly take that away with me as we contemplate future policy.
	We are here because, although the first anti-slavery day fell on 18 October, the Government have decided to align Britain's anti-slavery day with the existing EU anti-slavery day, partly as a reminder of the need for international co-ordination in this regard-a point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and many other Members in all parts of the House. I am sure that Anthony Steen would approve of our alignment with the EU in this context, although I am less sure that his successor as chairman of the all-party group would be quite as enthusiastic.
	Anyone outside the House who is listening to the debate or will read the report in  Hansard may be led to believe that Anthony Steen is no longer with us. I am happy to assure everyone that he was e-mailing me this morning, and I hope to see him somewhere on Monday so that we can jointly celebrate anti-slavery day.
	The day will provide a focus for not just the work of Government, but-this is important-the contribution of the many voluntary-sector groups that raise awareness and deal with the practical consequences of this of this terrible crime.

Jeremy Lefroy: Will the Minister give way?

Damian Green: I will give way once, but that will be it.

Jeremy Lefroy: I am most grateful to the Minister. Will he also acknowledge the voluntary groups that exist in the countries from which many people are trafficked? This week we have had the honour of a visit by Joseph D'souza of the Dalit Freedom Network, who will be in my constituency tonight. The network does tremendous work in India.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend has made a very good point. There are voluntary groups all over the world.
	At the beginning of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said that prevention was essentially better than cure. In the short time available to me, I want to inform the House of the future direction of trafficking policy.
	We all agree that trafficking is an appalling crime which treats people as commodities and exploits them for criminal gain. Combating human trafficking is a priority for the Government; what we have been discussing today is how it can best be achieved. We are seeking to improve the United Kingdom's response to the wider threat from organised crime, which includes trafficking. The Government's consultation paper "Policing in the 21st century" sets out our intention to produce a new strategy on organised crime, as well as referring to the creation of a national crime agency to make the fight against organised crime more effective. We therefore have an opportunity to ensure that there is specific consideration of the challenges involved in fighting human trafficking.
	The Government intend to produce a new strategy on combating human trafficking, which will take up many of the points raised in the debate. I am sorry that I do not have time to deal with each point individually. The new strategy will be aligned with and published alongside the strategy on organised crime. It will reiterate the Government's intention to take a comprehensive approach to combating trafficking, both by combating the traffickers and by looking after the victims. It will mark a greater focus on combating the organised crime groups behind the trade. I agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee that an end-to-end approach is necessary.
	The new strategy has four main components. It will enhance our ability to act early, before the harm has reached the UK; there will be smarter, multi-agency action at our border; there will be more co-ordination of our policing effort inside Britain; and victim care arrangements will be improved. Let me deal with those components in turn.
	Human trafficking is obviously a cross-border crime, and our earliest opportunity to counter the threat is therefore in the source countries and the transit regions. By intervening early, we can prevent harm from being done to people and reduce the impact here in the UK. As many Members have pointed out, interventions abroad can appear far removed from a flat or a brothel somewhere in a British city or small town-or, indeed, in a factory or farm where people are exploited for labour services-but we know that early intervention produces results. For example, a three-year trafficking investigation by the Serious Organised Crime Agency and Lithuanian police, which concluded in 2008, led to the dismantling of six crime groups in the UK, prison sentences totalling 145 years for 17 people in the UK and Lithuania, and the recovery of 32 victims. That is the kind of action that is needed all over the world.
	What we are proposing is to bring together our political and diplomatic activities along with our enforcement efforts. We want to ensure they share common objectives, focused on places where criminal operations are based. That will be done in partnership with the source countries. We will therefore look at the full range of interventions open to us. Through political and diplomatic dialogue, we will build political will to combat trafficking and translate that into initiatives on the ground in other countries. We will protect potential victims by intercepting the traffickers before their activities impact on the UK. That is the first step.
	The second step is at our border, which is the next line of defence against traffickers. As many Members have said, combating trafficking at the border is difficult, not least because victims will often be unaware of the traffickers' real intentions. Increased vigilance and more effective deterrence and interceptions are key. This will be one of the tasks of the national crime agency and its border police command. We want to embed that thought inside the new BPC in order to enhance our response at our borders. We will also look at how we can build on the success of the multi-agency child safeguarding and investigation teams at some of the UK's ports, and we will continue to roll out the e-Borders programme. That captures passenger and crew movements into and out of the UK and can be used to identify and intercept those suspected of a number of offences including trafficking.
	The third step is inside the UK. Our domestic law enforcement response to trafficking will remain a vital part of our overall enforcement efforts. Significant progress has been made in raising awareness of trafficking and the capability to combat it among police forces through enforcement operations and mandatory training on trafficking for all new police officers. That is a step forward. The UK Human Trafficking Centre is an important resource in helping police forces by offering tactical advice, co-ordination and intelligence. Through the new strategy we will ensure that there is more effective strategic co-ordination of our existing efforts and that that leads to more targeted enforcement action on the ground. What that means in practice is that there needs to be clarity about the roles and responsibilities of police forces in combating human trafficking on the streets of Britain and better co-ordination, for example through tools like the control strategy on organised crime, which provides a framework for action by law enforcement agencies.
	The fourth step is victim care, which is very important. As I have said, we want to have a greater focus on enforcement, but our aim is to prevent harm being done to people. Trafficking is a covert crime and the victims are often unaware that they are being trafficked until it is too late. When that happens, we need to ensure that we have the right arrangements in place to meet the care needs of victims. That will remain central to our approach. The Government are committed to ensuring that the UK meets its obligations to victims as set out under the Council of Europe convention on trafficking, which was signed a few years ago. More than 700 potential victims were referred in the first year after the convention was implemented, which is a significant achievement. We are committed to improving our response. We also plan to introduce a more effective system of victim care that takes better account of the needs of individual victims and ensures that each identified victim receives an appropriate level of support. We will announce further details of these proposals shortly. I should add that many practical suggestions were made during the course of the debate, which I will take up and feed into the process.
	Of course, the comprehensive spending review will be announced next week. As we have already made clear in relation to the NCA, we will make sure that more law enforcement activity is undertaken against more organised criminals and at reduced cost. To achieve that, we will prioritise resources by targeting the most serious criminals and being more joined-up, particularly in our activities overseas; we often have different agencies operating in foreign capitals and other large cities who do not work together as effectively as they should.
	The European directive has been a dominant theme in many Members' contributions. The draft directive does not contain any operational co-operation measures from which we think we would benefit. It will improve the way in which some other EU states combat trafficking, but it would make little difference to the way we combat it. As I have said however, the directive is not yet finalised so if we conclude later that it would help us fight human trafficking, we can opt in then.
	In conclusion, we will re-focus our efforts and make sure that this country maintains its reputation as a world leader in trying to end the disgusting and unacceptable survival of slavery in the modern world.
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

EAST COAST INSHORE FISHING FLEET

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Jeremy Wright.)

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to debate the future of the east coast inshore fishing fleet. This matter is of great importance, both to the fishing fleet in Lowestoft, in my constituency, and to other ports along the east coast and elsewhere in Britain. Although there is much wrong with the way in which the industry is governed today, I shall say from the outset that I exempt from any criticism the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who is responsible for the natural environment and fisheries.
	As a shadow Minister and now as a Minister, my hon. Friend has spent a great deal of time travelling around the coast, meeting and listening to fishermen, hearing at first hand their worries and subsequently doing what he can to address their concerns. That includes obtaining additional sole quota in August when the east coast fleet had no fish to catch. Last month, he and I met Lowestoft fishermen and discussed with them the problems that they face, and he subsequently came back with considerable speed to arrange for a delegation of fishermen from Lowestoft to meet him in Whitehall in December to discuss their plight more fully.
	Much of Lowestoft, as it stands today, was built on the back of the fishing industry. As well as a substantial deep sea fleet, a network of supporting industries grew up, including shipbuilding, net and rope manufacturing and processing factories. Ross Foods has long since gone, though Birds Eye remains as an important employer, despite no longer processing fish from its factory in the town. The railway used to run into the fish market, and fish sold in the morning was on London dinner tables in the evening. "Fresh fish from Lowestoft" was and still is an evocative cry, although sometimes today it rings hollow because the fishing industry is much diminished and is facing a fight for its very survival. Most of the deep sea trawlers have long gone, as have all but one of the shipyards and many of the supporting industries. However, an inshore fleet remains, which, with the right policy framework, can not only survive, but flourish.
	I am conscious that time is short, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I shall set out the problems that the fleet faces, not only in Lowestoft but along the east coast, and conclude with a few thoughts on how a sustainable and financially viable long-term future can be secured.
	Inshore fishermen face five problems. First, the common fisheries policy is over-centralised and fails to respond to local needs. It is too cumbersome, unwieldy and centralised, and the forthcoming review in 2012 provides an opportunity to address the problem.
	Secondly, the regime palpably fails to achieve its prime objective of conserving fish stocks and causes untold damage to the marine environment. Young fish are caught before they mature and there are inadequate incentives for the long-term management of stocks. Thirdly, the British under-10 metre fleet gets a raw deal, despite making up 85% of the British fishing fleet.

Sheryll Murray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister has inherited a disastrous problem with the under-10 metre quota? The previous Labour Government introduced fixed quota allocations, pinned the under-10 metre quota to a grossly underestimated figure and then failed to address the situation when it came to light with the registration of buyers and sellers. Our Minister has inherited a problem arising from the inaction of the Labour party when it was in government.

Peter Aldous: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree that the Minister has inherited an unenviable problem. There is a common perception that all fishermen have overfished the sea and are now reaping their own whirlwind. However, it is important to distinguish between deep sea trawlers and the inshore fleet, which fishes sustainably with long lines.
	The quota system, which is meant to conserve fish stocks, has spawned the obscene practice of discards. Fishermen go out to sea and once they have reached their quota they throw back perfectly healthy fish that they cannot land owing to the threat of criminal prosecution hanging over their heads. A Lowestoft fisherman has told me how only two weeks ago in five days he had to throw back dead 1,300 kg of skate; eight other similar sized boats have probably been forced to do the same. That makes 11,700 kg of dead skate thrown back into the sea in just five days-11.5 tonnes in one fishery. When one takes into account the fact that this is happening all around the British coast, one realises that the waste, destruction and pouring of money into the sea is mindboggling. In that fisherman's own words, the system not only stops him making a living and making long-term business investment plans but is decimating a national resource. If he was allowed to land just 20% of his discards, he could cover his expenses instead of operating at a substantial loss.
	The final problem that we face is that quota has become a tradeable commodity, with legal entitlement. It is often owned by faceless investors, known as slipper skippers, who have no connection with the fishing industry and who lease the quota to fishermen at a substantial profit. That should be contrasted with the sugar beet regime, where ownership of quota remains with British Sugar, which makes it available to individual farmers both large and small.
	The problems have created a frankly ridiculous and unsustainable situation. As I mentioned earlier, most of the deep sea-trawlers have left Lowestoft. However they still operate and fish the same grounds, although, as the quota was sold to a Belgian, the boats are now based in Belgium. Now and then the boats come to rest in Lowestoft, where the catch is unloaded and driven by lorry to Belgium or Holland. Much of it is then bought by Lowestoft-based processors and driven or flown back.
	That is the position in which the inshore fishing fleet finds itself today. If the regime remains unchanged, the fleet, both in Lowestoft and elsewhere around the UK coast, will cease to exist. It is important to remember that just as farmers are the guardians of the land, fishermen are the custodians of the sea. None of them wishes to be aboard the vessel that catches the last fish. They all have an interest in creating and managing sustainable fisheries.
	There is a solution, there is a way forward and there is a better way of running the industry. I do not have the answers and nor do the bureaucrats or officials, but I know the people who do: the fishermen, the scientists and the others who work in the industry.
	Let me set out five ways in which the situation can be improved. They are based on proposals made by the WWF and those running the east sea fisheries district. First, there must be a move from the current top-down micro-management. The EU's role should be to set high-level objectives. The Commission should not get involved in the day-to-day management of fisheries around such a large and diverse continent.
	That takes me to my second point: the day-to-day management should be carried out locally by fishermen, scientists such as CEFAS-the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which has its headquarters in Lowestoft-and representatives from the Marine Management Organisation and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. These are the people who know the fisheries best. Such an approach, with management decisions being taken by those who are involved in each specific fishery, is very much the big society in action. It involves politicians getting out of the way, departing the scene and leaving those who know best to run their own industry.
	Thirdly, the quota system should be relaxed and replaced with a maximum hours-at-sea means of maintaining fish stocks and controlling fishing. That will eliminate discards with fishing hours being varied over a year to take account of the level of stocks and weather conditions. If necessary, fisheries can be closed when stocks run low.
	Fourthly, it is important to use science in the future management of fisheries, both monitoring the amount of fish caught and recording fishing activity. For example, a vessel monitoring system-a VMS-could be fitted to all vessels that would provide detailed information on the state and seasonality of individual fisheries. That will help provide better information to assist in marine planning decisions, not only on fishing but on wind farms, dredging and marine conservation zones.
	Finally, I am mindful of the fact that today the North sea is an increasingly crowded place. As well as fishing grounds, there are shipping lanes, dredging areas and wind farms. The latter have an important role to play in Lowestoft's future, but more about that on another day.
	It is important that the marine environment is managed sustainably and responsibly. The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 provides a framework for that, although it is important that decision making takes place locally, that all interested parties are involved and that decisions are made promptly with the benefit of all the facts that science can provide.
	At the current time, the outlook for the fishing industry in Lowestoft and along the east coast does not appear bright. In the past, however, Lowestoft has adapted to change and has bounced back. The challenge that politicians across Europe must address as a matter of the highest priority is to provide a proper policy framework in which the inshore fleet can rejuvenate itself and move forward, providing a fair living for all those working in it. The comments of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki, which were reported in today's  Financial Times, provide encouragement that the seriousness of the situation is now appreciated.
	The Sam Cole Food Group, fourth-generation Lowestoft fish merchants, has recently made a bold decision and invested £2.5 million in a new processing factory. We owe it to those fish merchants and all those working in the fishing industry in Lowestoft and elsewhere around the British coast to do all that we can to reverse 30 years of decline in an industry that is at the heart of this island nation. I personally will not sit back and rest until a fishing regime that has almost destroyed the Lowestoft fishing industry is itself discarded and thrown overboard.

Laura Sandys: My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has made an excellent speech and his five key points were precise. I have little to add, other than my constituency interest and that of the neighbouring constituency, Canterbury, which includes Whitstable.
	In the past couple of months, the Minister and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have bent over backwards to assist us in resolving the quota problem that we experienced this summer, and I thank them for their work. However, we are approaching the end of this year, when we will start the new allocation of quota for next year. I know that the Minister will assist us again, but that situation reveals the byzantine, unworkable system with which the fishermen, the Department and the authorities must work.
	We all realise that the big prize is the reform of the common fisheries policy. On the inshore fleet, my local fishermen and I believe that some important measures need to be considered. If we can reopen the issue of controlling effort and examine technical measures rather than more prescriptive forms of management of our fisheries, my fishermen and many others along the east coast will be extremely grateful.

Sheryll Murray: I rise to declare an interest, because I have spoken in this debate. I am the wife of a trawler owner. My husband's trawler bears the registration "LT1", which was originally from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). My husband owns one of the vessels that has been displaced from Lowestoft, so I have seen how the port has declined over a number of years.

Richard Benyon: Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this welcome debate on the future of the under-10 metre fishing fleet. He represents his fishing fleet extremely well and is an assiduous lobbyer on its behalf, so it is lucky to have him. That is also the case for my hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), and for many other, often new, Members, who have taken on board the needs of and the problems facing their fishing communities with commendable spirit.
	I have made no secret of the fact that the issues facing this part of the fleet are particularly challenging, as has been discussed tonight. I am personally committed to improving fisheries management for the inshore fleet, but that will require difficult decisions and have implications for all parts of the industry. It is therefore crucial that we all work together as part of the big society, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, to develop effective and practical solutions.
	My hon. Friend mentioned Sam Cole, the fish merchant in his constituency, whom I have visited twice now thanks to his good offices. I have been struck by an important statistic that has stayed with me as I have gone around the coast in this job: of the fish that Sam Cole's father or grandfather-whoever started that business-sold, 90% used to be landed in Lowestoft and 10% used to be bought in, but those percentages are now precisely the reverse, and that has changed in a very few years. I am delighted that he is investing in the town and in this important industry, and I wish him and his fellow traders in the port well. I hope that there will still be a fleet there to represent at least part of what he seeks to sell.
	There are two strands to this subject: what we need to do now, which is to provide some relief to the immediate issues, and what we need to do in the long term, which is to move the whole fleet, around the coast, towards a more sustainable future. In the current economic climate and with the downbeat prognosis for quota allocations in the coming year, all sectors of the UK fleet are finding things difficult, and things are likely to get tougher in the short term. I shall not hide from that fact. I will go to the December Council negotiations with the aim of securing the best deal for the whole UK fleet, but it is unlikely that the quota allocations will be higher than last year's. However, I believe that we can take further steps together towards maximising the potential wealth from this quota, as has been demonstrated by the recent success in securing additional quota for the under-10 metre fleet by collaborative working between the Marine Management Organisation and producer organisations. I shall continue to push for more of that. I am grateful to hon. Members who have mentioned this, and I pay tribute to the new MMO, which has worked extremely hard with hon. Members and fishermen to ensure that the fisheries could stay open this summer.
	It is imperative that while trying to provide short-term relief, we continue to focus on the future. I have been delighted with the progress that has been made towards our long-term goal of a socially, environmentally and economically sustainable inshore fleet in the relatively short time that I have been in my post. The sustainable access to inshore fisheries, or SAIF, project was established by the last Government to help to achieve that goal, and I have built on the work that they set in train. I welcome the recommendations that were recently made by the advisory group, which has not shied away from addressing the big questions. I have been particularly impressed by the willingness shown by the inshore and offshore sectors in coming together to discuss a range of issues relating to the reform of inshore fisheries management in an informal working group. That valuable insight from industry, along with extensive research into the environmental, economic and social impacts of the inshore fleet, is feeding into the SAIF project, which aims to consult on proposals for reform in the new year.
	Any changes to the way in which our fisheries are managed both inshore and offshore will be more effective if they are implemented across the UK, and we are working with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations to share ideas and disseminate best practice. The SAIF work is also crucial in developing our negotiating position on reform of the common fisheries policy, helping to crystallise our thinking in relation to more localised management, self-regulation, differentiated management regimes, rights-based management and safeguarding the potential benefits of the small-scale fleet. CFP reform will play a crucial role in setting the framework for sustainable fishing, but there is much that we can do within our existing system, and we are taking action now.
	My hon. Friend mentioned discards, which are a waste of natural resources. They are as much an affront to fishermen as they are to consumers. In fact, they are probably more of an affront to fishermen, who, in a hungry world, have to carry out the hideous task of throwing perfectly edible fish back into the sea, dead, never to be eaten by any human being. That is a ridiculous product of a failed and bankrupted system, and a real example of why we have to change the common fisheries policy. I am committed to minimising discards. I say so with regret, because I want to eliminate them, but I recognise that although we must set our sights high, in the short term we must be realistic and seek to minimise discards. I shall therefore push strongly to bring about those changes to the CFP which in time will achieve that aim.
	Within the UK we have already made great progress in demonstrating the potential to reduce discards through more selective gears and fishing methods. The current catch quota project aims to pilot an alternative management system based on catch rather than landings quotas, thereby removing the need for excessive regulation and bureaucracy. It puts the responsibility on fishermen to use their knowledge and skills to fish more selectively to optimise the value of their catch. I hope that as the project progresses, we will be able to build on that and involve more parts of the fleet. The new Fishing for the Market project is also looking at how we can maximise the wealth from all, and often discarded, parts of the catch.
	The low-cost vessel monitoring project involves scientists and fishermen working together to improve data collection. That is important, too, because since shadowing this job and now doing it I have discovered that around many parts of our coast there is a gulf in understanding between fishermen and scientists. There is good practice, much of it in the south-west, but elsewhere, too, where scientists and fishermen now work closely, and I want to encourage that in any way I can.
	The introduction of inshore fisheries and conservation authorities will strengthen the local management of fisheries, based on greater self-determination by those who make a living from the sea. We want to ensure that fishermen are well represented on those authorities. The strategy developed in the SAIF project will provide the basis for a more sustainable fleet, enabling solutions so those other issues are addressed. Reform of fisheries management must empower fishermen and their local communities to take control of their destinies. We need to move away from arbitrary divisions within the industry to a more unified system where more local needs can be reflected.
	Some of the themes being discussed in the CFP reform can have a real impact, and they include rights-based management and regionalisation. I know that uncertainty breeds fear in an industry that has suffered greatly over the years, but as we develop our thoughts, in consultation at every stage with the inshore fleet and the fleet around the whole of the UK, I hope that a degree of trust-something that has been absent for too long-can be built, together with the real belief that we can turn a corner and make a real difference to the livelihoods of small coastal fleets, such as the Lowestoft fleet in my hon. Friend's constituency, and those elsewhere.
	Places such as Lowestoft have a strong fishing tradition and strong community support for the industry. They are already building the foundations needed to thrive under a reformed system. I again thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I welcome his enthusiasm for supporting his local fishing industry. I note his five solutions; they have been listened to and they will be reflected on as we progress.
	I am delighted to be able to end on a positive note with congratulations to my hon. Friend and to his neighbouring MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who have worked hard to help to achieve and secure a £1.2 million grant from England's European fisheries fund to support a major development at the Southwold port. I understand that it is not specifically in his constituency, but in the same fisheries area. I want to encourage and applaud that kind of working together of colleagues in this House, pushing for projects that give a sustainable future for their industries. I hope that by working together we can secure a future that will see developments that benefit fishermen for generations to come.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.